DER SP: Multas e Recursos

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

The description explains the two modes: permanent via config header and session-only via token parameter, and notes that calling with no args returns a link. It does not explicitly mention idempotency or all side effects, but the annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns reasonably without contradicting.

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 verbose but well-structured, presenting the primary use case (config header) and alternative token-based login in a logical sequence. It avoids redundancy and is reasonably concise for the information conveyed.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) and a description that explains the parameters and behavior. However, it lacks details about the response when called with a token versus no args, and does not handle error cases or clarify the config method as separate from the tool call. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to 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 effectively documents the single 'token' parameter: it explains that it expects a JWT when provided, and that omitting it returns a link. Although the schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage), the tool's description compensates with clear usage instructions.

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: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI. It explains the two modes: adding a header to the config for permanent access, or passing a token for a session-only login. This is concise 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 explicitly provides usage instructions: either add a Bearer token as a header in the server config, or call the tool with a token parameter, or with no args to obtain a login link. It also specifies the expected behavior for each usage scenario.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the exact response structure (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and the behavior when credentials are missing (returns connect_url and per-install URLs). This enriches the agent's understanding 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and then elaborates on edge cases. No filler or redundant information – every sentence adds value.

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 it's a stateless status check with no parameters enemies, the description covers all relevant scenarios: fully connected state and missing credentials state. It explains the return content (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs) sufficiently. No output schema exists, so the description carries the responsibility, and it does so admirably.

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 takes zero parameters as per the input schemaretry, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to explain, the description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior and return values, which fully compensates for the absence of parameter details.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'toolkit_info'. The behavior 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 implicitly guides usage by indicating this tool is for checking connection status and getting URLs. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the siblings are clearly unrelated (authenticate, report_bug, etc.), so the context is clear. A minor gap: no explicit 'use this when...' statement.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: prepaid per-query cost, no platform authentication, official non-confidential source, and LGPD controller responsibilities. No contradiction with annotations 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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by cost, source, and legal context. It is slightly dense but contains no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description provides important safety and legal context but is insufficient for correct invocation. It leaves unclear which credentials are needed, how parameters combine, and what the response contains.

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?

All 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain renavam, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, or pkcs12_pass. The phrase 'sem credenciais da plataforma' even creates ambiguity about the credential-related parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 clearly states the resource ('DER SP: Multas e Recursos') and the action ('consulta em fonte oficial'), making the tool's purpose identifiable. It is specific enough to distinguish from the listed platform-level sibling tools, though it does not state precisely what the query returns.

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 useful context: no platform credentials are needed, it uses prepaid credits, and it queries citizen-available official data. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or gives exclusion criteria.

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?

Discloses substantial behavior beyond annotations: invoke runs MCPs even when not installed, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when paid and wallet is empty, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace in search/describe. Writes requiring owner/admin is an auth disclosure. All consistent with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true — no contradiction.

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 wall of text with no line breaks, bullets, or flow demarcation. The content earns its place, but the lack of structure makes a 14-action dispatcher hard to scan. Length is justified by complexity; formatting is not.

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?

Remarkably thorough for a complex dispatcher with 23 params, no output schema, and thin annotations: it covers the core flow, install-vs-invoke semantics, credential/payment handling, permission tiers, installed-state flags, and the prompt library end-to-end. Gaps are per-action parameter semantics and output expectations, but navigationally it's nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 23 params, so the description carries the burden. It explains the core params (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) and enumerates all action enum values in prose, but roughly 10 action-specific params (cancel_reason, prompt_category, tier_slug, conversation, request_name, report_context, request_details, etc.) are never mentioned in either schema or description. Only partial compensation.

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 marketplace as the catalog of MCPs/tools AND the mechanism to run them, mapping the core search→describe→invoke flow plus the install/subscribe and prompt-library sub-flows. It adds specific capability-request examples ('consulta um CPF') and names distinct action roles (list_tools vs invoke vs install). Minor blurring: report_bug exists as both an action and a sibling tool, but overall 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?

Explicitly distinguishes invoke (one-off, no toolkit bloat) vs install (permanent native inclusion), directs 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' and states which operations require workspace owner/admin. It also lays out the recommended search→describe→invoke ordering. It doesn't compare against sibling tools like toolkit_info/authenticate, but the key alternatives are clearly contrasted.

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 carry the core primary keys; the description adds the useful context that the conversation should be included for reproduction. However, it does not explain what happens after submission, response behavior, or any side effects beyond the annotation flags.

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, and contains no filler. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and an important invocation detail.

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 has three parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers only one parameter's purpose. The annotation hints reduce safety-concern burden, but required-field semantics and return behavior are missing, leaving the invocation only partially guided.

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 the purpose of the conversation parameter, but it omits the required 'message' parameter and the 'context' parameter. It also refers to 'conversation array' while the schema declares conversation as a string, which could mislead invocation.

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 says 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback,' which names specific actions and targets. It is distinct from the sibling tools such as authenticate, marketplace, and show_version.

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 communicates when to use this tool: when there is a bug, missing feature, or feedback to send. It also instructs to include the conversation array, but it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools.

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 it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns platform and adapter versions, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond that. This is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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 is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning—'Show', 'current', 'MCP platform', 'adapter versions'—with zero 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 read-only version check with no output schema and no parameters, the description is complete. It tells exactly what the tool shows, and annotations cover safety. No additional context is needed.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline is 4 for no params, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary detail.

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: show current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb (show) and resource (versions), and the scope (platform and adapter) distinguishes 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?

The description implies when to use the tool—whenever version information is needed—and no alternatives are needed given its simplicity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool references, though that seems unnecessary here.

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. The description adds concrete context about what the read operation exposes, such as connection status and account info, going slightly beyond the structured traits.

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 front-loaded sentence conveys all necessary information without fluff. Every clause adds specific value: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts.

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, the description fully enumerates the return contents and scope. No output schema exists, but the description fills the gap adequately, so an agent can predict what the tool returns and when 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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no schema to explain. The description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs, which is entirely sufficient for this simple introspection case.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and exact resource 'current toolkit state', enumerating the returned contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the description: an agent would call this to inspect toolkit state. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over sibling tools, though their purposes are somewhat inferable.

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