CAFIR (Imóveis Rurais)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about permanent vs session-only connections, the meaning of providing a token, and the behavior of returning a link when no token is given. It does not contradict the annotations and enhances transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, densely packed with necessary information. It could be slightly better structured (e.g., separating the permanent vs session flows more clearly), but every sentence contributes value and there is minimal fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the essential flows: obtaining a token, using it permanently or for a session, and getting a link. It does not explicitly state the success/error response format, but for this simplicity level it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only a 'token' string property with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT for session-only login, that it is optional, and that omitting it returns the login link. This gives complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating IDE agents (MCP.AI) via browser login and access token. It identifies the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (log in, copy token). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect', which might also relate to connections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides detailed usage guidance: two methods (permanent header config vs session-only token), when to call with a token, and when to call with no args to get a link. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool requires no credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and deals with public data under LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the operational and legal behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and operational context in the second. It is efficiently written with no redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose, access method, billing, and data classification, which is good given the annotations. But it fails to explain the 'completo' parameter or what the response contains, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains that the CIB identifies the rural property for the query, giving meaning to the required parameter. However, it completely omits the optional 'completo' boolean parameter, leaving its purpose undocumented. With zero schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool consults the CAFIR registry using the property's CIB, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the generic platform siblings by specifying the domain and input.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context for when to use the tool: to query public rural property data, with clear guidance on payment and credentials. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but given the siblings are unrelated (auth, marketplace, etc.), the context is sufficient. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'use instead' references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about return values under different conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials), which provides useful behavioral transparency beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently explains conditional outcomes without wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return behavior in both connected and missing-credential states. It is complete and sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty. No additional parameter semantics are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing authentication.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate. It lacks clear exclusions or alternative guidance, so it falls short of a higher score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links, requires user action before retry, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also clarifies that invoke does not bloat the tool list, and explains prompt library behavior. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but appropriately so, given the tool's complexity (23 params, multiple sub-actions). It is logically structured: first marketplace core flow, then invoke/install guidance, then prompt library. However, it runs as a dense paragraph and could benefit from bullets or shorter sentences for easier scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is fairly complete for a complex, multi-action tool. It explains main flows, permissions, one-off execution behavior, wallet/auth interactions, and prompt library operations. It does not explicitly describe return values beyond 'full profile' and 'connect link', and some parameters remain unexplained, but the core functionality is well covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden. It explains the critical action enum values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, prompt actions) and how parameters like tool_id, arguments, and prompt_* fit into flows. It does not detail every one of the 23 params (e.g., tier_slug, cancel_reason, resume), but it covers the core semantics enough for correct selection.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and the way to run MCPs/tools. It specifies the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes it from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info) by explaining its catalog and execution role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and lists when to use subscribe/cancel/report_bug/request_mcp. It also contrasts with list_tools ('lists what is callable right now'), covering when to use the tool vs alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide read/write/destructive hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the instructional detail about including the conversation array, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication, limits, or what happens after submission. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key action. Every word is useful; no fluff or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple form-like tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the one notable usage requirement. It could add more detail about parameter formats or expected behavior, but it is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter as a 'conversation array with recent messages,' but leaves 'context' unexplained and only implicitly addresses 'message' as the bug report. This partial compensation is insufficient for full clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is distinct from sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly identifies when to use the tool (reporting bugs/feedback) and provides an explicit instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. No alternative tools are mentioned because none are relevant, but the usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context—just that it returns version information. It doesn't mention any potential side effects or prerequisites, but for a read-only version tool, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential information without waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. Annotations provide the behavioral safety profile, and the description clarifies what information is returned. Sibling tools do not require additional context for this straightforward version check.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' and specific resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions' make the purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like toolkit_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no context about scenarios where version info is needed or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful context about exactly what state is inspected and returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond relying solely on annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates specifics with a colon and list. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is complete for the agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description's focus on the return value is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact information provided: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which likely shows version only) and authenticate/connect (which handle auth).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: to get an overview of the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs and their health. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.