Conselho Regional de Odontologia: Cadastro

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that calling with no arguments returns a link, that passing a token enables session-only login, and that the config header provides a permanent connection. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description does not contradict them. It discloses that the tool can initiate a login flow, which is a valuable addition.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'). It then logically branches into two options. While slightly wordy, it avoids redundancy and presents information in a clear order. Every sentence contributes to understanding how to use the 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the two invocation modes (with and without token), explains the difference between session and permanent authentication, and gives the exact token format (JWT) and config placement. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and 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 schema only lists an optional 'token' property with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the token parameter is an optional JWT to be passed after the user pastes it, and that omitting it yields the login link. This provides clear semantics that the schema alone lacks.

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: authenticate to the MCP server for IDE agents. It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing specifically on login and token acquisition, with explicit steps for browser login and token handling. The verb 'authenticate' and the resource (server connection) are clearly defined.

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 guidelines: call with no args to get a login link, or pass a token for session-only authentication. It also contrasts the session-only approach with the recommended permanent config header approach. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or mention alternative sibling tools beyond the implicit config route.

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 and idlempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds detail about the output structure (authenticated field, pending array, connect_url) and the conditional behavior based on connection state, which goes beyond annotation metadata.

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, both dense with information: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the two possible states. No redundant wording, perfectly front-loaded.

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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, when it returns them, and the two possible outcomes. Nothing is missing for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It appropriately focuses on output 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?

Clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, with specific mention of 'authenticated:true' and 'pending[]'. This verb+resource description distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than 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 explains two distinct scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the tool returns in each, giving the agent context on when the tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for not using it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 useful behavioral details such as cost (prepaid credit) and data privacy (LGPD, not confidential). The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description does not contradict, but the added cost and legal context enhance transparency partially.

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 with some legal and business jargon, making it slightly verbose. However, it is not excessively long and contains relevant information, though it could be more streamlined.

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 provides context about the official source, payment, and data protection, but it omits practical usage details (e.g., what the parameters represent, any restrictions) and does not specify expected output or error scenarios. This leaves gaps for the user.

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 parameters 'inscricao' and 'uf' are not explained at all in the description. The user is left to infer their meaning (likely registration number and state code), but no explicit elaboration is provided, making it deficient.

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: querying CRO registration information from an official source. It specifies the domain (Regional Council of Dentistry) and the action (consulta), 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 mentions payment per query and lack of platform credentials, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It lacks explicit usage scenarios or conditions.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), the description discloses important behavioral traits: invoke runs even when the MCP is not installed, does not bloat the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links under auth/payment conditions, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains that search/describe flag installation status. 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 dense paragraph, over 2000 characters, with no bullet points or section breaks. It front-loads the purpose but then continues with many details in a run-on style. While every sentence carries information, the lack of structure makes it harder to parse quickly. It could be split into clear sections or lists.

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 complexity (23 parameters, many actions) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential workflows well: search/describe/invoke, install vs invoke, prompt library, billing, and permissions. It does not explain error handling or specific output formats, but the main usage scenarios are addressed.

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 action parameter's enum values and the core parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_*). It describes the flow for each action, which implies which params are relevant. However, many parameters (e.g., prompt_targets, cancel_reason, report_context) are only mentioned indirectly or not at all, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 marketplace tool does: it is the catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It explicitly names the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and covers capability requests. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning report_bug sends feedback and that install persists MCPs, while invoke runs one-off. The verb+resource is specific and 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also explains the condition for returning connect/checkout links and directs to search_prompts/get_prompt for the prompt library. It names alternatives like list_tools and clearly distinguishes actions.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a note about including recent messages for reproduction, implying data will be sent, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether a bug report is created, stored, or triggers notifications). Since annotations cover basic traits, the description adds minimal extra 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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is well-structured, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and a key input requirement. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 lacks crucial context: it does not explain the three parameters (context, message, conversation) or clarify the data types (especially the array/string mismatch). It also omits any information about the return value or outcome of the report. Given the schema has no descriptions and the tool is relatively simple, the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably use it.

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 mentions a 'conversation array' but the schema defines 'conversation' as a string (with default '[]'). This contradicts the schema and confuses the agent. The description provides no explanation for the 'context' and 'message' parameters, leaving their purpose and expected format ambiguous. With zero schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate for parameter semantics.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It unambiguously identifies the action and the target resource (bug/feedback). The mention of including the conversation array for reproduction further clarifies the intended use case.

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 when to use the tool (when a bug or feedback is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, lacking specific conditions like 'use this tool when you encounter an error' or 'not for general inquiries.'

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 and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the specific content of the output (platform and adapter versions), but does not disclose additional behavior like return format or authentication requirements. It does not contradict 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and scope. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 version-checking tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns (platform and adapter versions). No additional context is needed given the tool's simplicity and the annotations that already declare its safe read-only nature.

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 elaborate on parameters, and no further semantics are required beyond what the schema already fully covers (100% coverage with no properties).

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' with a clear resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplase, which have different functions.

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 as a simple version inquiry but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Since there are no exclusions or conditions, it falls short of the higher scores.

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 description's main addition is the specific content of the returned state. It adds context about what information is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is useful beyond the basic annotations. It doesn't explain side-effect behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the key data points. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool, the description fully captures what the agent needs to know: the tool provides state/status information. With strong annotations and no parameters, there is little else to explain. The description is complete for its intended 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists; it focuses on the return value, which is appropriate for a no-input tool.

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 resource ('toolkit state') while enumerating the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'marketplace', which presumably target different aspects of the system.

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 makes it evident this is an informational/state-inspection tool, distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which are action-oriented. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, though the context makes its purpose fairly unambiguous.

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