DETRAN AP: Impressão de CRLV

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses the exact login flow, the meaning of a session-only login, and the non-expiring nature of the config-based token. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, then presenting the primary (best) and secondary usage paths. It's a bit verbose but every sentence adds value, and key information is 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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers both invocation modes, the authentication flow, and the token's role. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema, so this is acceptable. The description is complete for practical 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 schema only has a 'token' string with no description. The description explains that the token is a JWT used for session-only login, and that the tool can be called with no args to get a link. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, though it could be slightly more precise about expected token format.

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 by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by specifying it's for MCP.AI IDE agents and provides concrete steps (browser login, token copy).

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 gives explicit usage guidance by explaining two modes: permanent config-based auth vs session-only token paste. It also states the best practice (add to config) and the alternative, providing clear context for when each is appropriate.

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 a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral depth: the conditional presence of pending[] and connect_url for different provider-connection states. This goes well beyond the structured metadata with no contradictions 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?

Two sentences total, no fluff. The lead sentence states the core purpose, and the second expands into edge cases. Every word 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?

For a parameterless, connection-status tool, the description covers both primary runtime states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the shape of the response in each. Combined with the rich annotations, this is a very complete package despite the lack of 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is technically nothing to explain. Per rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't introduce any param-related ambiguity.

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 clearly names the action ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), then enriches with concrete response behavior in different auth states. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status and URLs rather than the auth flow itself.

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?

Provides clear context on what the tool returns in both connected and missing-credential scenarios, which signals when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, 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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context: the query is non-confidential data, it is not a platform-side credential operation, it costs prepaid credits, and there are LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 short and has an informative first sentence; the following clauses add relevant charging, privacy, and LGPD context. It is slightly dense, but still efficient and not bloated.

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 covers purpose, billing, and legal responsibility, but does not describe the required inputs or the shape/semantics of the result. With three required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, a paid CRLV query tool needs additional operational context for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain placa, renavam, documento_proprietario, their formats, or how they relate to the CRLV lookup. The parameter names are left entirely to inference, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema property names.

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 a specific operation: 'Impressa de CRLV' and 'consulta em fonte oficial' for DETRAN AP. It identifies the resource (official Brazilian vehicle/CRLV data) and differentiates itself from the sibling tools, which are generic platform operations like authenticate, marketplace, or 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 provides clear usage context: this is a paid, prepaid-credit consultation from an official source, requiring no platform credentials. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific 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?

Discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links in specific cases, writes require workspace owner/admin, and the prompt library is separate. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false is consistent with writes).

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 long, dense block of text with no formatting or segmentation. It front-loads the purpose well but then dumps a large flow explanation. It contains some redundancy (e.g., repeated list of actions) and could benefit from bullets or a structured breakdown of actions.

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 highly complex 23-parameter, 14-action tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the primary use cases, permissions, and special cases (connect/checkout links, installed vs permanent, prompt library). However, it omits the 'resume' action and leaves several parameters undocumented, so it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and contextualizes key parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments. However, many parameters (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, prompt_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets) are not explained, and the arguments JSON format isn't clarified.

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 identifies the tool as "The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them." It also distinguishes it from siblings by being the central catalog and execution engine, covering capability requests and the core search→describe→invoke flow.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: core flow for finding and running MCPs, when to use install vs invoke ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), what to do with connect/checkout links ('the user opens it, then you retry'), and mentions alternatives like list_tools and request_mcp.

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 does not disclose any side effects, state changes, or post-submission behavior beyond what annotations already indicate (idempotent, non-destructive). It does not add transparency about potential outcomes or requirements.

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, using a single sentence to convey the tool's function and a key parameter hint. No unnecessary words 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?

The description provides enough to understand the tool's basic action, but lacks details on expected input format, output, or any constraints. Given there is no output schema, the description is moderately complete but could benefit from more behavioral specifics.

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?

Only the 'conversation' parameter is mentioned in the description ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). The 'message' and 'context' parameters are not explained, leaving their semantics unclear given the schema has no 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 purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It also mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which adds clarity on the intended use.

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 compared to alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. It lacks context on when reporting is appropriate or how it differs from other 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it shows versions. It doesn't mention any side effects or additional behavior, but with strong annotations, the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict annotations, 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 a single, concise sentence that fully conveys the purpose. There is zero waste, and it is appropriately front-loaded. Every word 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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete enough. It states what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter). It could potentially mention the format or how to interpret the output, but for a simple version tool, this is sufficient. The sibling 'toolkit_info' might suggest more context, but the description stands on its own.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously true). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is clear about what it does, so this score is justified.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'toolkit_info', which might also provide version information, so it loses a point for not differentiating.

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 this tool (when you need version info) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the sibling 'toolkit_info', there could be overlap, but no exclusions or comparisons are mentioned. This is adequate but lacks explicit 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add behavioral context beyond that. It does so by enumerating the returned information: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts, which clarifies the observable behavior despite lacking an output schema.

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 but is information-dense, front-loading the purpose and then listing the exact categories of state information returned. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant wording.

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 that this is a no-input read-only information tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It names the return dimensions and does not require additional caveats.

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 schema provides no semantic burden. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what information is returned rather than any input 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then expands with concrete elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes the purpose easy to understand and distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is useful: whenever an agent needs to inspect the toolkit's installation and connection state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals that sibling tools like connect and authenticate are for changing state, not inspecting it.

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