Conselho Regional de Odontologia RR: Cadastro

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

The description discloses the browser login flow, token duration (permanent vs session), and the fact that calling with no args returns a link. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by detailing the exact user interaction and token handling, without contradicting any 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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every clause contributes to understanding how to use the tool effectively, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: the authentication flow, token usage, both permanent and session options, and user actions. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and benefit from the 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 'token' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining the token's role ('{ token: "<jwt>" }') and distinguishing between providing a token versus no args, which adds essential semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: authenticates the user for MCP.AI IDE agents by providing a browser login flow and token handling. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication, and specifies the exact resource (MCP.AI) and action (log in, copy token).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: it explains the recommended permanent method (add to config as Authorization header), the session-only alternative (paste token), and how to initiate the flow (call with no args). It also clarifies when to use each approach, making the tool's usage 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when fully connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. 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?

Two front-loaded sentences communicate purpose first, then conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value explanation, and it covers the two primary states. It does not detail partial connectivity or exact output field names, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to document parameter meaning. The schema provides full coverage trivially, making baseline 4 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 clearly states it 'Returns connection status and URLs' and gives specific outcomes for connected versus missing-credentials states, making the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinguished from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by measuring status rather than performing authentication.

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: to check whether providers are connected, and it notes that missing credentials yield a connect_url for authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use authenticate instead,' but the context is clear enough for selection.

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 valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions payment via prepaid credit, lack of platform credentials, and data sensitivity (non-confidential, LGPD compliance). Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, so these additions are complementary and non-contradictory.

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 compact paragraph with each sentence contributing distinct information: purpose, hosting/credentials, payment model, data nature, and legal compliance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and the presence of readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description covers essential operational aspects: cost model, credential requirements, data sensitivity, and legal responsibilities. It does not discuss result format or error handling, but that is acceptable for a straightforward query 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 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'inscricao', and the description does not explicitly explain this parameter. While the field name is somewhat self-explanatory to Portuguese speakers, the description neither defines it nor provides usage examples, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 queries registration data from the Regional Council of Dentistry of Roraima (RR) via an official source. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools by specifying the domain (dental registration) and source credibility, though it could be more verb-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 provides context on how to use (prepaid credit, no platform credentials) and when it's appropriate (official Brazilian data, non-confidential). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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 well beyond the annotations by explaining that invoke runs tools even when not installed (one-off), returns connect links for missing credentials, checkout links for empty wallets, and that writes require owner/admin. It also clarifies the prompt library publishes shareable links without login. While openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false are in annotations, the description adds material side-effect details (payment, auth, one-off execution) that an agent needs.

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 block with no paragraphs or bullets, making it hard to scan. It packs many concepts (core flow, auth, payment, prompt library, permissions) into one run-on text. While the complexity justifies length, the lack of structural organization hurts readability. It could be improved with clear sections for different action families.

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 high complexity (23 params, 14 actions, no output schema), the description covers the essential flows, side effects, and prerequisites, including the prompt library and permission requirements. It lacks error-handling details and some parameter semantics, but for agent decision-making it is largely sufficient. The absence of an output schema is offset by the description of expected outcomes (connect links, checkout links, shareable link).

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, and it does explain the critical `action` enum in detail (listing all 14 values and their roles). It also mentions `tool_id`, `mcp_id`, and `arguments` in the flow, and implicitly covers prompt-related parameters. However, many parameters like `limit`, `query`, `immediate`, `tier_slug`, and `cancel_*` are left unexplained, and there is no systematic mapping. The description is helpful for core actions but incomplete for the long tail of 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 identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace for discovering, running, and managing MCP/tools, with a core flow of search → describe → invoke. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library functions, though the breadth of actions makes the specific verb+resource less crisp. Slightly over-general but still specific about what it orchestrates.

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 states when to use invoke (single/occasional use without installation) vs install (permanent toolkit addition), and names alternatives like list_tools for callable items and request_mcp for building new MCPs. Also notes auth requirements (owner/admin for writes) and payment flow (connect/checkout links). This is exemplary guidance for a multi-action 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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the instruction to include conversation for reproduction, which is useful but not extensive. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The actionable instruction about conversation inclusion follows naturally with zero waste.

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 with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and hints at conversation usage. It doesn't describe the return value (not needed since no output schema) but could be slightly more explicit about the message parameter being the core text. Overall adequate for the complexity.

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 compensates partially. It mentions including the 'conversation array with recent messages,' giving meaning to the conversation parameter beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'message' or 'context' parameters, leaving some gaps.

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.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve 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 conveys when to use the tool (for bug reports, missing features, or feedback) but doesn't provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative tools. It gives clear context without formal when-not 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: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering the behavioral profile. The description adds no extra details beyond what annotations convey, such as the exact output format or whether it includes build time. Since annotations are comprehensive Thorough, the description does not need to repeat them, but it could add value by mentioning that it returns a simple version string. 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 sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It is front-loaded and minimally sized, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 a simple purpose, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the user exactly what information is displayed. No additional context is necessary, making the description contextually 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 tool has zero parameterscd, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to explain any parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description aligns with this, providing no redundant or missing parameter information.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect and authenticate, which have entirely different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any context like 'use to verify compatibility before troubleshooting'. However, given the simplicity and lack of needed alternatives, this is a minor gap. A more helpful description could note that it is a read-only diagnostic tool for version checks.

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 provide strong read-only, non-destructive, idempotent signals. The description adds valuable context by precisely listing what 'state' means: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This goes beyond what typical getter tools offer by specifying the exact details included, helping the agent set expectations without extra calls.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and clearly lists the pieces of information returned. Every element adds value, and there is no fluff. The description is easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for an informational 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a detailed annotation block already declaring read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides all necessary information. It completely describes the kind of state returned (MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog counts). There is nothing missing for an agent to decide when and how to use 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter space to document. The schema describes an empty object, and the description fully covers everything the tool returns. This is a case where the description and schema are in perfect sync, and the tool's simplicity does not require further parameter clarification.

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 returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This goes beyond a simple verb+resource pairing and makes the tool's scope immediately understandable. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' which imply actions, while this is clearly an informational/read-only tool.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (whenever you need an overview of the toolkit state, including MCPs, connections, accounts, and catalog counts). However, there is no explicit 'when'/'when not' guidance, no named alternative tools or exclusions. For a tool that requires no parameters and is a basic status getter, the absence of explicit alternatives is acceptable but leaves the usage context only implied.

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