Conselho Regional de Odontologia RO: Cadastro

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the behavioral outcomes of the two usage paths: permanent (config-based) vs. session-only (token passed). It does not directly contradict the annotations; the annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the described authentication setup behavior. The description could add more detail about the response format, but it provides useful context about the login process.

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 appropriately sized, with three sentences that cover the purpose and two usage methods. It is front-loaded with the tool's primary use case and readable, though it slightly mixes audience context (targeting IDE agents) with operational instructions, which could be tightened but is not unnecessary.

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 simple parameter set (one optional token) and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand how to invoke it and what to expect: login link or token submission. It covers the essential use cases and suggests a config-based alternative, making it functionally complete for an authentication 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 schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not mention every nuance, such as validation rules or error handling, but for a single-parameter tool this is sufficient 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: it authenticates users for MCP.AI in IDE agents, providing a login flow. It explicitly mentions the verb 'log in' and the resource (access token), and it effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the authentication workflow.

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 guidance on when and how to use the tool: it recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or alternatively using the tool with a pasted token for session-only login. It also clarifies that calling with no args returns the login link, giving clear usage 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it tells what fields are returned (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and how they vary by state. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

Two sentences that are perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, then concise conditional details. Zero 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 simple read-only status tool, the description fully covers its behavior and return values. No output schema is present, but the description explains the outcome fields sufficiently. There is no missing context for an agent to invoke it 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 baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not add parameter information because there are none, and the schema's 100% coverage with no properties makes any parameter discussion moot.

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 specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which performs authentication rather than reporting status. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'connection status' are explicit.

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 when different outputs occur (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), which helps the agent understand the context of use. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a status check tool.

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 annotation by stating that the data is official, not confidential, and that the client is responsible for legitimate purpose under LGPD. This adds meaningful behavioral context about data sensitivity and legal obligations, though it omits details like failure modes or rate limits.

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 includes essential information about the data source, payment method, and legal disclaimer. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tightened without losing clarity.

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 lacks an output schema, and the description does not specify what data will be returned after a query. It also does not mention error handling or response format. Given the simplicity of a query tool, this omission is noticeable but not critical.

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 'inscricao' is not explained in the description. While the name hints at a registration number, no format, required pattern, or example is provided. The description adds no value to understanding the parameter beyond its literal name.

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 specifies the action (consulta) and the resource (Cadastro from Conselho Regional de Odontologia RO), distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version. The purpose is 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 some usage context: hosted on the platform, no platform credentials required, and payment via prepaid credit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other alternatives, nor provide conditions for non-use. The payment and credential info is helpful but incomplete as a guideline.

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 include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral details beyond them: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed (one-off execution), it triggers a hidden install, and returns auth or payment links based on state. It also clarifies that install makes an MCP permanent, and that writes require elevated permissions. No contradictions with annotations, and it enriches the behavioral understanding.

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 long (~250 words) but appropriately dense for a multi-action tool. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and core flow, then branches into key notes (invoke behavior, install vs invoke) and a separate prompt library paragraph. The structure is logical, with minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming examples.

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, multiple actions, no output schema), the description covers the essential workflow, permission requirements, and failure/edge cases (connect link, checkout link). It explains the prompt library thoroughly. It lacks explicit return format details for search/describe/list_tools, but the flow is otherwise well-contextualized. It is mostly complete for a typical usage scenario.

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 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the central 'action' enum and associates each main action (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, prompt actions) with its purpose and key parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, query, and limit. However, many parameters (e.g., prompt_body, prompt_vars, cancel_reason, immediate) are not individually described, leaving some ambiguity for advanced use. The description adds meaning beyond the schema but doesn't fully cover all parameters.

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 is the official MCP marketplace and execution platform, with a specific verb-resource structure. It distinguishes its core flow (search, describe, invoke, install) and covers both MCP discovery/execution and prompt library functions. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like authenticate or connect, its purpose is unambiguous and detailed.

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 walks through the core flow (search→describe→invoke), advises 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' over install, and explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links and how to retry. It also details that write operations require owner/admin permissions, and distinguishes list_tools as listing callable tools. This covers usage context and exclusions thoroughly.

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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral guidance on how to provide reproduction context (conversation array), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending data to a server) or any prerequisites beyond that. Given the annotations, the description contributes some extra behavioral context, so 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the one critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple reporting tool with no output schema and 3 parameters. The description captures the overall purpose, the key usage detail (conversation inclusion), and relies on annotations for safety. It doesn't over-elaborate but adequately covers the essential context. A minor gap is the lack of explanation for 'context' and 'message', but for such a tool it's acceptable.

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 compensate. It explains one parameter (conversation) as 'recent messages for reproduction,' but leaves 'message' and 'context' undocumented. The purpose statement implies message is the feedback content, but this is not explicit. With 3 parameters and only one clarified, the description does not adequately compensate for 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (bug/feature/feedback), and it distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, connect, 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 implies when to use it: whenever a bug, missing feature, or feedback needs to be sent. It also provides a specific instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for a standalone reporting tool.

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, and the description aligns with those. The description adds the specificity of 'current MCP platform and adapter versions' and implies a live read, but no further behavioral context such as auth needs or output format is disclosed. No contradiction exists.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately states what the tool shows and the specific version categories covered.

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 no-parameter, read-only version display tool, the description is sufficiently complete. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the description clearly conveys what information will be presented, even without an 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and there is no parameter information needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the exact resources ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which have entirely different purposes.

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 version information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple no-parameter tool this is acceptable, though explicit guidance is absent.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal new behavioral context beyond the return contents. It doesn't mention any potential side effects or additional details, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 verb 'Returns' and immediately enumerates the key pieces of information. Every word contributes value, with no superfluous 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema, clear sibling context), the description is complete. It lists the specific info returned, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it. The only minor gap is not describing the output format, but that is less critical here.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly indicates that no arguments are needed by describing what the tool does without referencing any inputs, which is suitable for a zero-parameter 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 explicitly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing the specific categories of information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'authenticate', making the purpose 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 implies this is a read-only informational tool suitable for checking the state of the toolkit, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools. It lacks exclusions or specific use cases, though the clear purpose helps infer usage.

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