CPFL: Download via link

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations: it explains the permanent vs session-only behavior and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive, which aligns with the description. It does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful behavioral details about the token flow.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently covers the two usage modes without excess verbosity. The second sentence is long but coherent. It is appropriately concise and readable.

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 authentication complexity, the description covers the main usage paths (permanent config, session token, link retrieval) and implies the return value ('get the link'). It lacks explicit mention of error handling or response format, but for an authentication tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete for agent use.

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 compensates well by explaining that 'token' is a JWT and optional: it can be passed for session login or omitted to get the link. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema property name and type, though it could be slightly more explicit about the token's format or validation.

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 what the tool does: it authenticates IDE agents via a browser login and token retrieval. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact flow (log in, copy token) and the two ways to use the token (permanent config vs session). The verb 'authenticate' and resource are explicit, and the description gives concrete steps, making it unambiguous.

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 on how to use the tool: with no args to get a login link, or with a token for session login, and recommends the permanent config option. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', it gives sufficient situational guidance for typical use. It could be stronger with an explicit 'use this when...' but is otherwise helpful.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable conditional behavior beyond annotations: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This is meaningful additional context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful behavioral information. No 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return scenarios sufficiently. It could further clarify what 'pending[]' and 'per-install URLs' represent, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's return behavior instead.

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 and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by describing a status/URL retrieval operation rather than an authentication action.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, covering both the connected state and the missing-credentials state. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'authenticate' for when credentials are missing, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that no platform credentials are required, that queries are paid via prepaid credit, and that data is not confidential, plus LGPD responsibility. This enriches behavioral context 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 a single run-on sentence containing payment, legal, and data-source info. It is information-dense but poorly structured, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits parameter semantics and return values. It provides context on cost and legal compliance but misses operational details necessary for the agent to invoke 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 schema lists two string parameters with no descriptions; the description references 'link' but never explains 'documento' (likely a CPF/CNPJ) or expected formats. With 0% schema 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 states 'CPFL: Download via link, consulta em fonte oficial' and clarifies this is an official-source consultation for CPFL bills, distinguishing it from generic platform tools. However, it does not explicitly mention 'bills' in English or detail the exact output, but the core action is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. It mentions platform hosting and prepaid credit but does not compare to alternatives or state conditions like 'use when needing CPFL bill data'. The legal LGPD note is not usage guidance.

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 annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and provide no details on side effects. The description adds key behaviors: invoke runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and 'Writes... require workspace owner/admin.' It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags, which goes well beyond 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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and the core flow is logically sequenced, but the description is a long unbroken paragraph with Portuguese 'pontualmente' and packed details that could benefit from bullet structure. Every sentence earns its place overall.

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 large action surface and no output schema, the description covers most operational aspects: auth requirements, payment flow, permanent vs one-off install, and the prompt library. However, it lacks explicit return formats/examples and leaves some parameters unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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 23 params and 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does explain central params like action, tool_id, mcp_id, arguments, prompt_slug, request_details via the action walkthrough. However, many params remain undefined (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_targets, report_context, cancel_comment), so compensation is partial.

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 opens with a specific purpose: 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' and then details the core search→describe→invoke flow. It differentiates from siblings like authenticate/connect/report_bug by explaining marketplace as the catalog/runner, even noting report_bug is one of its actions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' and states request_mcp 'asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It also maps each action (list_tools, subscribe/cancel, search_prompts) to its scenario, providing a clear decision framework.

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 cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and the description adds behavioral context: requiring conversation array for reproduction. No contradiction; description complements 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a single critical instruction. No fluff, every word 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?

For a simple bug-report tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the core function and reproduction guidance but leaves parameter semantics incomplete (especially 'context' and message format). Acceptable minimum but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions the conversation array, omitting 'context' and 'message' (the required one). The string-encoded format of conversation is not clarified, and context is unexplained.

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' with clear resources: bug, missing feature, or feedback. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which are unrelated.

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?

Provides clear context: for reporting issues/feedback, and explicitly instructs to include the conversation array. Does not explicitly exclude other tools, but given sibling purposes, the intended use is unambiguous.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying exactly what version information is returned (MCP platform and adapter versions), providing useful context 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention the return value format, but the phrase 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' sufficiently conveys what the tool provides.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly indicates that the tool simply returns version information without requiring inputs.

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 clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: the tool is obviously for checking version info. There is no mention of when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions, but for a zero-parameter version tool this is not a significant gap.

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 that the state is 'current' and enumerates the returned data, but it does not disclose potential behavioral details like freshness guarantees, network dependency, or whether connection status requires active checks. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the return value and then details the contents in a compact enumeration. Every part of the description adds information with no filler or 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so by listing the four main data categories: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for a simple, read-only informational 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered. Since there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, the baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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'), then lists exactly what the state includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes toolkit_info from siblings like show_version (likely a narrower version check) and authenticate/connect (action-oriented tools).

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 the tool should be used when checking toolkit status or inventory, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or list exclusions. Sibling tools such as show_version might overlap in purpose, but no comparison or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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