DETRAN MG: Multas (Descritivos)

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that calling with no args returns a link for browser login, and calling with a token performs session-only auth. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects (like token expiration) or response structure, but given annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

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 ideal but efficiently packs the necessary usage detail. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then explains the two modes of operation. Every sentence contributes to understanding, though it could be tightened by merging some phrases.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios: token-based login and link generation. It doesn't specify response details, but given the absence of an output schema, that's not required. It is complete enough for an agent to execute the tool effectively.

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 'token' as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT, that it is optional ('or with no args'), and how it is used for session-only login. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose: authenticating for MCP.AI in IDE agents. It specifies the exact action (login, obtain token) and provides context on how it differs from sibling tools (like connect or marketplace) by focusing on authentication flow. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it well.

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 instructions: how to use it with a token, without arguments to get a link, and even recommends the preferred permanent method via config header. It clearly states when this tool is needed (authentication) and even mentions the alternative of config-based auth, providing a clear when-to-use/why.

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, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return structure (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and conditional outcomes, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 core purpose. The conditional logic is explained efficiently without 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It covers both success and missing-credential cases adequately, though terms like 'per-install URLs' and 'pending[]' could be slightly more explicit.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, and specifies distinct behaviors for connected vs missing credentials. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval.

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 use for checking connection status by explaining the output in different states. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as authenticate, though the context is clear.

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 readOnly=true, openWorld=false, destructive=false. The description adds that it is an official source, requires prepaid credits, and includes LGPD compliance info VIP. It clarifies that no platform credentials are needed, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose potential response delays, rate limits, or any side effects. The mention of the source being non-confidential adds some trust context, but it stays at a general level. Since annotations cover the basic 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 paragraph with three sentences. It includes legal context about data governance, which is relevant but not strictly operational. It's not overly long, but the LGPD mention could be moved elsewhere. The purpose is front-loaded, so structure is acceptable. I give a 3 because it's not particularly concise or structured for quick scanning.

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 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description provides zero explanation of what the parameters mean or what the response looks like. It also fails to mention the authentication parameters (login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert) or how they relate to the 'sem credenciais da plataforma' statement. Given the complexity and lack of schema coverage, the description is incomplete.

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 shows 6 parameters (3 required, 3 optional), but the description provides no explanation for any of them. It doesn't clarify what 'login_cpf', 'login_senha', or 'pkcs12_cert' are for, nor does it explain the purpose of 'placa', 'renavam' beyond obvious domain knowledge. With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears full responsibility to explain parameters but fails to do so.

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 it's a 'consulta' (query) to an official DETRAN MG source for fines (multas) with descriptive details. It distinguishes itself from siblings (which are system/tool management functions) by naming the specific domain and operation. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'descritivos' means exactly, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond mentioning the need for prepaid credits. It implies a use case (querying official vehicle fine data) but doesn't offer comparison to any other tool or mention when not to use it. No guidance is better than nothing, but it's minimal.

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 goes well beyond annotations by explaining that invoke runs a tool even when not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also clarifies that invoke does not permanently add MCPs to the toolkit. While it does not mention rate limits or error handling, it provides substantial behavioral context without contradicting the 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 long (about 400 words) but every sentence contributes unique information about the marketplace, invoke vs install, permissions, and the prompt library. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows, though it could benefit from paragraph breaks for readability. It is not redundant and does not waste 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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers the main workflows, auth requirements, and the distinction between invoke and install. It omits some actions like resume and parameters like immediate, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios. It also explains what describe and invoke return, compensating for the lack of 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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the parameter burden. It explains the meaning of action values (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.), the role of tool_id, and the purpose of prompt-related params (e.g., publish_prompt returns a shareable link). However, not all 23 params are explicitly described (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, conversation, request_details), leaving some ambiguity for lesser-used params.

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 official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them." It specifies the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_bug and toolkit_info by covering the entire marketplace domain. The verb+resource structure is explicit and the differentiation is strong.

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 guidance: "Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use." It also explains when to use search vs describe vs invoke, and notes that list_tools lists currently callable tools. It covers the prompt library actions separately, giving clear context for search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt.

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 convey read-only, destructive, and idempotency characteristics. The description adds useful context about including conversation messages for reproduction, but it does not disclose what happens after the report is sent (e.g., whether a ticket is created, whether confirmation is returned, or whether data leaves the environment).

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides the key usage instruction. There is no filler, repetition of schema, or unnecessary 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?

For a simple feedback/reporting tool, the description covers the main purpose and the important reproduction payload. However, with no output schema and no return-value behavior described, an agent cannot anticipate what a successful call returns or whether any follow-up is needed. The idempotentHint=true also lacks contextual explanation.

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 does clarify the conversation parameter as recent messages for reproduction, but it does not explain the context parameter or specify message format/length beyond the general purpose. This is partial but not complete parameter guidance.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and show_version, which serve unrelated 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?

The description gives explicit use cases (bug, missing feature, feedback) and instructs the agent to include the conversation array for reproduction. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the sibling set contains no overlapping reporting tool, so the applicable context is clear.

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 side-effect profile. The description adds useful scope by specifying that it reports both the MCP platform version and adapter versions, going slightly beyond the generic title.

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 front-loads the action and resource, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary 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?

For a parameterless version-inspection tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention the return format explicitly, but the expected output (version strings) is simple and implicit.

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 are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately omits irrelevant 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 a specific action ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as authenticate and report_bug, which have unrelated 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever version information is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide context like 'use for debugging' or 'if you need toolkit info, use toolkit_info instead.' The guidance is adequate for a trivial parameterless tool but not fully explicit.

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 value by specifying what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradictions with annotations, and it doesn't need to repeat safety info since annotations cover it.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides a concise enumeration of contents. No fluff, no redundancy—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 stateless info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned. The complexity is low, and the description covers everything an agent needs to know to decide to call this 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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The empty input schema requires no compensation from the description, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' 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?

The description implies a clear purpose: use this to get an overview of the toolkit's state. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use it, but given the sibling names (authenticate, connect, etc.), the usage context is obvious. A brief 'when you need status' would push it to 5.

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