DETRAN BA: Licenciamento

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

The description discloses the two authentication workflows (config-based permanent and session-based), and explains that calling with no args returns a link. This adds context beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) 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 a single focused paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then explains the two usage modes. No 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 the tool's relative simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains how to use it, what it does, and the distinction between persistent and session auth. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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 schema only defines 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT to paste for session login, and that omitting it retrieves a login link. This fully covers the parameter semantics.

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: authenticate by either providing a token or getting a login link. It uses specific verbs ('log in', 'authenticate') and distinguishes itself from siblings (no other auth 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?

Explicitly explains when to use the token vs. no-args mode, and distinguishes permanent vs. session-only login. It also provides the exact call patterns and the recommended approach for permanent connections.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the exact return values in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), which is meaningful behavioral detail beyond 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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provide concrete examples. No redundant wording, 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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the two main output scenarios and what to expect, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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 has full coverage (100%) and there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist.

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, with specific details about two scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing). It specifies the resource (connection status) and the verb (returns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate which likely initiates authentication rather than checking status.

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 – to check connection status and retrieve connection URLs – and provides context about different outcomes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives like authenticate, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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 indicate read-only and idempotent, and the description adds beyond that: payment model, data sensitivity (non-confidential), LGPD responsibility, and clarification that no platform credentials are needed. This adds useful behavioral context without 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?

A single, concise paragraph with no wasted sentences. It includes necessary legal and payment context without being overly verbose.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: it does not explain what identifiers are needed, what the query returns, or any usage prerequisite beyond having credentials. The legal/payment info is good but does not cover core functional completeness.

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 provides no explanation of any of the 6 parameters (chassi, renavam, login_cpf, etc.). It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation at all.

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?

Specifies a clear verb+resource: 'consulta' (query) for 'licenciamento' (licensing) from an official source. This distinguishes it from sibling admin tools like authenticate or connect.

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: describes it as a paid query with prepaid credit, pulling only public non-confidential data from official sources. Does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are generic, so context is sufficient.

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?

It discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin', invoke works without installation, and credential/payment flows return connect/checkout links requiring retry. No contradiction with annotations. Slight deduction because it does not describe the general return shape or error behavior for the invoke response.

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 but front-loaded with the resource and core flow. It uses arrows and semicolons to pack many clauses efficiently, and every section adds information. It loses a point because some sentences are run-on and the organization could be clearer with separate paragraphs for MCP vs prompt-library 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?

Given 14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the search→describe→invoke pipeline, auth and payment edge cases, permanent vs one-off install, and the prompt library. Gaps include missing explicit mention of the 'resume' action and under-specification of several parameters, but for selecting and invoking the tool, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the meaning of action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments via the core flow, and covers prompt_slug/vars for prompts. However, with 23 parameters, many (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, cancel_comment, prompt_tool, prompt_targets, conversation, request_name, etc.) are left undocumented, so an agent may not know how to set them correctly.

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 opens with a precise resource and function: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It lists concrete capability requests ('find an MCP that does X', 'is there a tool for Y') and outlines a clear core flow, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like authenticate or connect.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explains when to use request_mcp ('when nothing fits'), subscribe/cancel, and report_bug. It also distinguishes prompt-library actions from MCP actions, so an agent can pick the correct sub-action confidently.

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 the tool is not read-only, is not destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds a useful reproduction-context requirement by asking the caller to include the conversation array. It does not describe what happens after reporting or any side effects, but the annotations lower the burden and no contradiction 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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states purpose and the key reproduction-related aid. Every word adds value and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 three-parameter feedback tool, the description covers the tool's purpose and one important invocation hint. However, it lacks parameter-level clarity, does not reveal the expected format of the conversation value, and does not explain optional context behavior.

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 for the three parameters, but it only addresses one: 'conversation array.' It does not explain 'message' or 'context', and it calls 'conversation' an array even though the schema defines it as a string, which could mislead the agent.

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 action: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It names the exact resource categories and distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and show_version. The verb 'report' and resource 'bug/feedback' are specific 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 tells the user when to use the tool: to report a bug, request a missing feature, or provide feedback. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended use cases are clear and no sibling tool appears to overlap.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the fact that it displays versions, which is acceptable for such a simple read-only operation. 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 filler and absolutely indispensable information. It is highly concise 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 trivial complexity—no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already indicating side-effect-free behavior—the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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 input schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). Thus, the description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the baseline for no-parameter tools applies.

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 ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or report_bug, which serve 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the wording implies it should be used when version information is requested. Since no sibling tool appears to provide version info, the lack of explicit alternatives is not a major issue.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safe, read-only nature explicit. The description adds that it returns 'installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes,' which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential latency or network dependency, but that's not critical for a read-only info 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, well-structured sentence that lists all the key components it returns. There is no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then details the contents. Perfectly concise.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information. It explains the content of the return value sufficiently for an agent. Could possibly mention that it reflects real-time status, but the annotations and purpose make that clear enough. No significant gaps.

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 parametersaine Woran. With no parameters, there is nothing to document, so the baseline is high (4 per rubric). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the 100% coverage is trivial. The description effectively explains what the tool returns, which is the primary semantic content.

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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is specific and informative, distinguishing it from siblings like 'show_version' (which likely only shows version info) and 'authenticate'/'connect' (which modify connections).

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?

This is a read-only informational tool, so usage guidance is straightforward—it's for checking the state of the toolkit. The description does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it, but given the tool's nature)Skip this blank. The description says 'Returns the current toolkit state...' which clearly implies inspection, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect' make it clear this is not for actions, but an explicit statement would improve the score.

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