DETRAN CE: Emissão de Taxa de Multas

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

The description explains the token exchange behavior and that no args yields a login link. Annotations note idempotency but not the mode switch. The description adds context about permanent vs session, which annotations do not cover, though response format and error cases remain undisclosed.

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 despite containing rich instructions. It front-loads the target audience and then provides the authentication flow. Slightly run-on, but every sentence contributes actionable guidance without excess.

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 single-parameter authentication tool, the description covers the essential contexts: why, when, and how to authenticate. It explains two distinct workflows and the meaning of no-arg calls. Gaps remain around response payload and failure handling, but these are not critical 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?

Schema only lists 'token' as a string with no description. The description fully explains the token parameter's meaning, optionality, and how to use it ('call with { token: ... }'), and when to omit it. This adds significant semantic value beyond the 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 the tool is for authenticating IDE agents via browser login and token handling. It uses specific verbs (log in, copy, add, paste) and distinguishes itself from siblings like connect and marketplace by focusing on authentication 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?

Explicitly describes two usage modes (permanent config header vs session-only token) and when to call with or without the token argument. Provides clear alternatives and decision points, exceeding basic 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing exactly what is returned under connected vs missing-credential conditions, which is valuable for a status-checking 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 compact and efficient. Two sentences communicate the core purpose and both relevant output states without 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 status tool with no output schema, the description covers the important return conditions and provides enough detail about authenticated, pending, and connect_url. It lacks only a small amount of extra nuance about what 'per-install URLs' specifically contain, and it does not explicitly connect to the authenticate flow.

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 input schema carries no burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed; the description correctly focuses on output behavior instead.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also defines key output states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials are missing), which distinguishes this read-only status/connection tool from sibling tools like 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 gives clear context about the two output states, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus authenticate or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than directly stated, and no alternative tool is named.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it is hosted by the platform without credentials, requires prepaid credit per query, and accesses non-confidential official data with LGPD compliance. It also clarifies the client's role as data controller. This adds value without contradicting 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 a single paragraph with multiple sentences. It leads with the main purpose, then covers payment and legal aspects. While not excessively long, it includes the LGPD sentence which may be extraneous for tool invocation. The structure is acceptable but could be more concise by removing redundant legal phrasing.

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 3 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., fine list, payment slip, status), nor does it elaborate on parameter requirements beyond the schema's required fields. It mentions payment and data nature, but crucial invocation details like expected output and parameter formats are missing. Without output schema, the description should carry more weight, and it falls short.

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 describe any of the three parameters (ait, placa, renavam). Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory for the Brazilian domain (placa = license plate, renavam = vehicle registration, ait = traffic violation notice), the description omits all semantic details. Since schema provides no descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the 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 verb 'consultar' (query) with the resource 'multas' (fines) from DETRAN CE, and mentions it queries official Brazilian sources. However, the phrase 'Emissão de Taxa de Multas' (issuance of fines fee) introduces slight ambiguity about whether the tool generates a payment slip or simply returns fine data. It distinguishes from generic sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace, but doesn't specify the exact output format.

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: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials needed, pay per query with prepaid credit, and it queries official non-confidential data. It implies usage for legitimate purposes under LGPD. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or when not to use it.

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 reveals key behaviors beyond the minimal annotations: invoke works even when an MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are needed, and performs a one-off install. It also states that writes require workspace owner/admin, and describes how the prompt library works with shareable links.

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 and information-rich, with each sentence covering a distinct aspect of the tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into workflow and edge cases. It is a single long paragraph, but no filler; a bulleted structure might improve readability, though it remains concise for the complexity involved.

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 high complexity (23 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers core flows, one-off vs permanent installs, auth requirements, billing interactions, the prompt library, and how to request new MCPs — all essential context for correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden, and it largely succeeds. It explains the semantics of action values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe, etc.) and clarifies how parameters like tool_id and arguments fit into the invoke flow, plus prompt-related values.

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 — a catalog of MCPs and tools plus a way to run them. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering search, describe, invoke, install, billing, and prompt library functions, which none of the siblings overlap with.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each action ('Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns... → invoke RUNS that tool'), and when to prefer invoke over install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'). It also names alternatives like list_tools and report_bug for other needs.

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 idempotentHint=true Board-check, which is consistent with a reporting tool. The description suggests including conversation for reproduction, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether the feedback is stored, sent, or acknowledged), but the annotations already cover safety (non-destructive, non-read-only). The description adds moderate value 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a key instruction about including conversation for reproduction. It is efficient and free of fluff.

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 simple nature of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description provides adequate guidance for the primary use. However, it lacks explicit instructions for the 'context' parameter and does not specify the expected response format, which might be important. It is minimally complete but has gaps in parameter coverage.

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. The description explicitly mentions 'message' (required) and 'conversation' (for reproduction), but does not clarify the 'context' parameter. The description adds meaning for two of the three parameters, but 'context' remains undocumented, which is a minor gap given the higher baseline for zero coverage.

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 specifies the action (report) and the resource (bug/feature/feedback), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'marketplace' or 'detran_ce_multas_consultar' that serve 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it, or alternatives for specific types of feedback. The sibling tools do not offer obvious alternatives, so some implicit context exists, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable specificity by clarifying that the tool reveals both MCP platform and adapter versions, and 'current' signals that it is not historical or cached.

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 or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the tool's 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 no-parameter, read-only version checker with strong annotations, this description is completely sufficient. It names exactly what information is exposed and contains no missing usage requirements or ambiguous 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter-level ambiguity. The description adds enough semantic context that no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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') with a clear resource: current MCP platform and adapter versions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or detran_ce_multas_consultar, which have 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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to display or check current platform/adapter version information. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer it over alternatives like toolkit_info, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the specific content of the toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is helpful beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any potential latency, rate limits, or whether the state is real-time or cached. With annotations covering the safety profile, 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, compact sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and lists specific data elements. There is no wasted verbiage, making it 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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema, no hidden side effects) and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly enumerates the key outputs the agent can expect. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify whether the information is static or dynamic, but for a toolkit info tool, this is acceptable. The description does what it needs to for a simple read-only 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 takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since the schema is empty). With no parameters to document, the description naturally carries no parameter-specific information, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output will contain, which is relevant for the agent's decision to invoke.

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 returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific about the resource (`toolkit state`) and the attributes returned. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings (e.g., `show_version`, `marketplace`), its scope (installed MCPs and accounts) makes it fairly distinct within the sibling set.

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 usage context: to retrieve current toolkit state, likely before other operations like `authenticate` or `connect`. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to alternative tools for other purposes (e.g., `show_version` for version info, `marketplace` for browsing available MCPs). It provides a clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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