Conselho Regional de Odontologia PR: Cadastro

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

The description discloses the behavior beyond annotations: it explains that calling with no args returns a link, and that providing a token sets up session authentication. It also mentions the permanent vs. session distinction, aligning with the idempotentHint annotation.

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 moderately sized but well-structured, breaking down the usage into two clear paths. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then elaborates on methods, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

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 complete for the tool's complexity: it explains both authentication workflows, the role of the token, and the outcome of each call. It does not need to describe return values since no output schema is provided.

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?

Although the schema only lists 'token' without description, the description clarifies that token is a JWT and explains that it is optional (no args for link). It also details the two usage modes, adding meaningful context.

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: to authenticate the user for IDE agents via a browser login and token, distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace. It explains the two authentication methods explicitly.

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 provides clear instructions on how to use the tool, including two approaches: permanent config via header and session-only via token. It also notes that calling with no arguments returns a login link, which guides the user on when to use it.

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 readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful transparency about conditional outputs: authenticated:true when all providers are connected, and connect_url/per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not fully explain partial-connection states, but for a simple read-only check 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 tight and front-loaded: it immediately states that the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs.' The remaining conditional details are concise and directly relevant, with no filler or redundant clauses.

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 low-complexity: no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema. The description explains the primary return scenarios well. A small gap remains around edge cases such as partially connected providers or the exact URL shape, but the description is otherwise sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds meaningful context about the type of information returned.

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 a status/read operation: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace by focusing on checking status rather than performing an 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?

Usage is implied by the description: call this to check connection status and obtain URLs. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as authenticate, nor does it provide exclusion or prerequisite 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the safety is clear. The description adds value by noting it is hosted on the platform, requires pre-paid credit, returns non-confidential data, and includes LGPD responsibility. This is 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 moderately sized with several clauses about payment and LGPD. It is not overly verbose but could be more concise. It front-loads the purpose and adds contextual details, so it is acceptable.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description could describe the return format or error cases. It mentions consulting information but not what specific data is returned. It covers prerequisites (payment) but is not fully 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 only parameter is 'inscricao' with no schema description. The description never explains what this parameter means (likely a registration number). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 it consults registration ('Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial') from the Regional Council of Dentistry of Paraná, which is a clear verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly say 'query' but 'consulta' implies it. It distinguishes from siblings as none are related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment requirements and data sensitivity but does not state conditions for use or exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no differentiation is provided.

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 key side effects beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for missing credentials or payment, and installs permanently modify the toolkit. It also mentions auth requirements for writes. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true) 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 but well-structured: it opens with purpose, then the core flow, key behaviors, and other actions. While long, it packs essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for the scope. It could be front-loaded with bullet points, but it remains appropriately organized.

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 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it covers all major actions, side effects, auth, billing, and the prompt library. It leaves little ambiguity about the tool's capabilities and operational nuances, making it fully contextual.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the core parameters (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields) through the described flow. However, not all 23 parameters are explicitly defined (e.g., immediate, conversation, request_name), leaving some gaps, though the primary semantics are covered.

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 role as the official MCP marketplace and the way to run them, covering capability requests. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its catalog search, profile description, and invocation flow, making it unambiguous which resource and action are involved.

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: it contrasts invoke (one-off) with install (permanent), lists alternatives like subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp, and states owner/admin requirements for writes. It also outlines the core search→describe→invoke flow, leaving no doubt about the intended usage context.

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?

With annotations present but not contradictory, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention that the report is transmitted externally, any data privacy implications, or what the idempotentHint=true implies for repeated submissions. The description could provide more transparency about 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?

The description is extremely concise, with two focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single practical hint without any 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 tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but misses key details like the purpose of 'context' and a clearer specification of the 'conversation' format. It covers the essentials but leaves room for interpretation.

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 tool description must carry the full explanatory burden. It partially explains 'conversation' and 'message' but leaves 'context' completely unexplained, and the required format for 'conversation' (JSON string, array structure) is ambiguous. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'report' with clear objects (bug, missing feature, feedback), immediately conveying the action and resource. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are unrelated to bug reporting.

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 instruction to include the conversation array provides some practical usage guidance, and the tool's purpose makes its context obvious. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' or any exclusion criteria, though the sibling list makes this less critical.

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 disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it reports live/current version data, but provides no additional behavioral details such as output format, caching, or auth requirements. There is no contradiction with 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 concise sentence with a clear verb and object, containing no filler or redundancy. It is optimally 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 read-only version-reporting tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output scope. It could describe the exact return format, but for a version query this is not necessary for reliable tool selection or invocation.

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 empty schema is fully covered and the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings. This is the baseline case for a no-parameter tool and no semantic gap is present.

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 identifies the exact resource being queried: the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is clear and likely distinguishable from siblings by its subject matter, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with toolkit_info or other 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 adequately implies when the tool would be used: whenever an agent needs to know the current MCP platform or adapter version. It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, but this is not disruptive for such a simple zero-parameter utility.

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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful content about what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), but doesn't disclose potential side effects or performance considerations set beyond annotations. This is adequate but not outstanding.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the key data fields. There is no redundancy or filler—every clause 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 tool is a simple read-only information retrieval tool with no parameters and a clear output described in the description, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. A more detailed breakdown of the output structure (e.g., possible values for connection status) could enhance completeness, but for a toolkit overview tool, it's sufficient.

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 no parametersebb—the input schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters. Since there are 0 parametersсят, this is effectively a perfect score, as no parameter documentation is 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's purpose: returning the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It specifies the resource ('toolkit state') and the action ('returns'), and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, it is distinct enough given the sibling set.

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 an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's integration state. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect, marketplace), the context is clear. A slightly more explicit note on when to prefer this over other tools would improve it.

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