DETRAN CE: Emissão de Extrato de Licenciamento

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the permanent vs. session-only distinction, the non-expiring nature of the config header, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not reveal failure modes or session cleanup details, but given the annotations already indicate safety (idempotent, non-destructive), the added context is sufficient.

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 slightly longer than necessary but each sentence adds distinct value: audience, login method, permanent config option, session-only paste option, and fallback no-args behavior. The structure with 'Best:' and 'Or' makes options easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: how to authenticate, where to place the permanent token, how to do session-only auth, and the no-args fallback. It does not mention error handling or post-login state, but the essential steps are complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates well by explaining the token parameter as a JWT to paste and the no-args case for getting a link. It could have specified token format more precisely, but it provides enough meaning for an agent to use the parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating the MCP server for IDE agents via browser login and token capture. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the auth flow (permanent config header vs. session-only paste) and no-args link retrieval. The verb 'authenticate' plus specific resources (browser, token, config) leaves no ambiguity.

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 details: log in via browser and copy the token. It also gives clear alternatives and best practices: adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection versus pasting it for a session-only login. This effectively guides the agent on how to invoke the tool depending on user intent.

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 conditional return values, explaining exactly what the agent will receive in different states (authenticated vs missing credentials). This goes beyond the annotations and sets proper expectations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by conditional details. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool with good annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the two primary states (all connected vs missing credentials). It could mention partial connection states, but that is a minor gap for such a simple 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 nothing for the description to explain. With an empty schema, the description naturally provides all needed parameter context. Baseline 4 is 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific behavioral details (authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which likely initiates 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?

The description provides clear context about when the tool is relevant: it returns connection status based on credential presence, implying it is used to check whether authentication is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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?

As annotations já declaram readOnlyHint, idempotentHint e destructiveHint, e a descrição as complementa com informação valiosa: custo pré-pago por consulta, ausência de credenciais da plataforma, fonte oficial e responsabilidade LGPD do controlador. Não há contradição com as 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?

A descrição é curta, front-ended e organiza bem propósito, custo, fonte e obrigações legais. Há um pequeno exagero ao repetir 'fonte oficial' em duas frases, mas em geral todas as frases contribuem.

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?

Para uma ferramenta simples com apenas 2 parâmetros e sem output schema, a descrição entrega bom contexto de acesso, custo e tipo de dado. Ainda assim fica incompleta por não descrever o significado/formato dos parâmetros placa e renavam, nem o formato do extrato retornado.

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?

A cobertura documental dos parâmetros é 0% e a descrição não explica placa e renavam, seus formatos ou tipos esperados. Portanto, a descrição não adiciona nenhum significado além dos nomes crus dos parâmetros já presentes no 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?

A description claramente identifica o recurso (Extrato de Licenciamento do DETRAN CE) e a ação (consulta em fonte oficial). Dessa forma, diferencia-se dos siblings, que são ferramentas de autenticação, suporte e marketplace. O propósito é específico e acionável.

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?

A descrição dá contexto operacional claro: consulta hospedada pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, paga por consulta via crédito pré-pago, e com tratamento de acesso a dado não sigiloso. Não nomeia explicitamente alternativas ou exceções, mas contextualiza bem quando e como usar.

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 significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: invoke runs tools one-off even when not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and install makes MCPs permanent. It also discloses permission requirements and how installed status is flagged, making behavior predictable. 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 dense but front-loaded with the core flow, and each sentence adds useful information without fluff. The structure of explaining the main flow, key invoke behavior, then other actions and prompt library is logical and appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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 breadth (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers most operational contexts: discovery, description, invoke, install, billing, bug reporting, and prompt library. It lacks explicit return-value details for some actions like search and list_tools, but overall it is largely 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only elaborates on the main action-related parameters (action, tool_id, arguments) and prompt variables. Many other parameters like limit, query, conversation, cancel_reason, prompt_targets are left to inference from names, which is insufficient for a 23-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 clearly states what the tool does: it is the official mcp.ai marketplace covering both discovery and execution of MCPs, plus a prompt library. It distinguishes itself by explaining the core search→describe→invoke flow and is further differentiated from siblings like authenticate 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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use invoke versus install, when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library actions. It also notes the prerequisite that writes require workspace owner/admin, which helps the agent decide whether to proceed.

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 declare idempotentHint true and readOnlyHint false, but the description adds no behavioral context about side effects (e.g., data transmission, network calls, or what happens after reporting). The mention of including conversation for reproduction hints at required inputs but does not clarify the tool's external impact or failure modes. No contradiction, but minimal additional transparency.

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 deliver the core purpose and a key parameter hint without unnecessary verbiage. Every word adds value, and the most critical 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 reporting tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but misses opportunities to mention return values or side effects. It provides enough to understand the basic function but lacks detail on post-submission behavior or error handling. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable yet improvable.

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 clarifies that 'conversation' should contain recent messages for reproduction, adding some meaning, but leaves 'context' and 'message' unexplained. No formats, defaults, or examples are provided, leaving the agent to guess their purpose beyond generic naming.

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') with a specific verb and resource. Sibling tool names (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) are unrelated, so there is no ambiguity. The purpose is 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages' is a peripheral usage hint but does not address selection criteria, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the specific nature of the output (versions of platform and adapter), but doesn't go beyond that. Since annotations are comprehensive, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds value but no additional behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 clearly states the purpose. There is zero waste—every word is necessary. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Show'.

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), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. It might benefit from mentioning the format of the output, but that's not required since there's no output schema. The annotations already cover behavioral aspects like idempotency and read-only.

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 coverage is 100% (essentially no parameters). Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It correctly focuses on what the tool returns, which is 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 the tool's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It specifies the verb (Show) and the resource (versions), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' which might also provide version information, but it's still clear enough.

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—when one needs to know the current versions of the platform and adapter. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but given the simplicity, it's adequate. The sibling 'toolkit_info' may also provide version info, but no distinction is made.

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, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context about the toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog count) beyond just saying 'returns state'. It does not describe edge cases like empty state or error behavior, but the annotations cover the critical non-mutating nature.

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 both concise and information-dense. It lists the key elements of the response without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'toolkit state'. No 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?

The tool is simple (0 params) and has strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description covers the essential meaning of the tool's return value (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the user gets, which it does well. It doesn't mention error conditions or how the state is derived, but for a status tool this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds value by explaining the output content (the state details) which is the main value of the tool. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description clarifies what the returned state includes.

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 purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.' The verb 'Returns' is specific and the resource (toolkit state) is clearly identified with enumerations of the content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog count). This differentiates 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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, given the tool's role as a top-level status/inspection tool among siblings that perform actions (connect, authenticate, consultar), the context implies it is used for checking state. There is no explicit when-not/alternative guidance, but the purpose is clear enough to infer that it is used to get an overview before performing actions.

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