Cidadão MG Veículos: Transferência de Propriedade de Veículo

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

While annotations are present (readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:true), the description adds critical context: the permanent non-expiring header option, the session-only limitation, and the exact payload format. This goes well beyond what annotations state.

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?

Two sentences with actionable flow and example plus configuration guidance. No 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?

For a simple 1-param auth tool with no output schema, description covers the login flow, alternative permanent method, token format, and the no-arg behavior. Slight deduction: it doesn't explain the exact response format, but that's acceptable given no output schema expected.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the token parameter inline ('{ token: "<jwt>" }') and describes behavior with token vs. without. Deduction: it doesn't explicitly state the token is a JWT in text, but the example covers it.

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 starts with 'for IDE agents' then explains the login flow, options for permanent vs session-only login, and invocation examples. The verb phrase 'log in' plus the resource (MCP.AI API) is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace'.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with the recommended permanent config approach, implies when to use it (session-only) vs. configuration, and explains when to pass the token vs. call with no args. This addresses alternatives directly.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about payment (prepaid credit), lack of platform credentials, data sensitivity (not confidential), and LGPD responsibility, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 paragraph of about 60 words, front-loading purpose and then adding payment and legal context. It is not verbose, but it omits parameter guidance, which is a missed opportunity for effective communication.

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?

Despite having 25 parameters (12 required) and no output schema, the description fails to provide parameter semantics, output expectations, or prerequisites. Annotations cover read-only and idempotency, but the description is insufficient for an agent to properly invoke this tool.

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 provides zero information about any of the 25 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on parameter names (e.g., placa, chassi) without any hints about formats, relationships, or requirements, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 it performs a query ('consulta') for vehicle property transfer from official sources. It is distinct from sibling tools which are platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 places the tool firmly in the context of vehicle transfer queries, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated platform features, so the domain context is sufficient.

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 goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by detailing the exact output in two scenarios: when all providers are connected returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing returns connect_url. This behavior disclosure is valuable for an agent to interpret the results correctly.

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 core action ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and explains the conditional outcomes without any redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, including return values for all relevant states. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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, so the schema provides full coverage (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional semantic explanations 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status reporting rather than performing authentication, and the title 'Connection Status' reinforces the purpose.

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 clear context by explaining what happens in different states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which implies when to use it for checking connection status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as stating 'use authenticate to establish connections instead'.

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 discloses important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: invoke works without installation, does not bloat the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and writes require workspace owner/admin. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core flow, using arrows and KEY emphasis to improve scannability. It is long, but justified by the tool's 14 actions; still, the single-block format could be clearer with bullets or sections, and some examples add bulk.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflows thoroughly: catalog search, describe, one-off invoke, permanent install, billing, admin permissions, and the prompt library. Gaps remain around return formats for several actions and the exact semantics of less-common parameters, but the guidance is broadly actionable.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of action values, mcp_id, tool_id, the invoke flow, and prompt-related parameters. However, several parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason/cancel_comment, prompt_targets, conversation, prompt_description, and request_details remain without explicit mapping.

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 establishes marketplace as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution layer, with a concrete search → describe → invoke core flow. It distinguishes the tool from the listed siblings by covering the full marketplace, installation/billing actions, and the prompt library.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use which action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'. It also gives retry guidance for connect/checkout flows.

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 convey idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only hints. The description adds useful context by asking for recent conversation messages for reproduction, but it does not explain what happens after submission, whether data is sent externally, or any other side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose and a key usage instruction without any wasted words. The description is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 feedback-reporting tool, the description covers the main use case and the reproduction hint is helpful. However, with no output schema and limited behavioral disclosure, it should ideally explain the role of the context parameter and what feedback the user can expect after reporting.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies the message and conversation fields, but it leaves the context parameter completely unexplained, and it calls conversation an array while the schema types it as a string.

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 ('Report') and names the resources ('a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'). This clearly differentiates it from unrelated siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and show_version.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: for reporting bugs, requesting missing features, or sending feedback. It also instructs users to include the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool comparisons.

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 and annotations are consistent: readOnlyHint is true, idempotentHint is true, and destructiveHint is false. The description itself adds no extra behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already provide, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity but not additive.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and provides complete information without any filler. Every word contributes value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only version-check tool, the description and annotations fully cover the context. There is no need for output schema details or additional behavior explanation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully captures the lack of inputs. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 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 ('Show') and a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tools and unambiguously communicates what the tool does.

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 the tool is for checking platform and adapter versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tools. Since the sibling list includes similar informational tools like toolkit_info, some additional guidance would be helpful, but the intent is still reasonably 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 well-covered. The description adds the specific content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose any potential side effects (though there likely are none) or performance implications, but with strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by specific details. Every word earns its place, no 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns in enough detail for an agent to know what to expect. It could potentially mention that it's a snapshot or that it might require prior authentication, but that's not necessary given the simplicity. A 4 is appropriate.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned state includes, which is more important than parameter semantics here.

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 returns the current toolkit state, listing specific components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource (returns state) and distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which likely returns version info) and connect/authenticate (which modify state).

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 this is a read-only informational tool for checking the toolkit's current state, which is clear from the context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, but the sibling tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace) suggest it's for status checks rather than actions. No explicit exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough.

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