DETRAN MG: Multas (Extrato)

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool returns a login link when called with no arguments, accepts a JWT in a specific format, and differentiates between permanent (config-based) and session-only authentication. It aligns with the idempotentHint=true annotation and provides context that would not be known otherwise.

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 at roughly 70 words, with the core action front-loaded ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'). It efficiently conveys two usage paths and a best-practice recommendation without extraneous words, though the parenthetical about config could be seen as slightly tangential.

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 no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the essential behaviors: how to initiate login and how to complete it. It omits details like response format or error handling, but given the low complexity and the strong parameter documentation, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 provides zero documentation for the 'token' parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by specifying that it is an optional JWT string and that omitting it yields a login link. It even illustrates the exact call format, making the parameter's behavior completely clear despite the sparse 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: to log in and obtain an access token via browser or accept a JWT token. It uses specific verbs like 'log in', 'copy', 'paste' and describes two concrete invocation modes (no args for link, token arg for session). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, making its function 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 gives clear contextual guidance: it suggests the best practice of adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, and explains the session-only alternative. It explains how to use the tool in two distinct scenarios but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like 'connect' or state when not to use it, missing the 'when-not' component required for 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, the description adds value by explaining the return behavior: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This gives the agent insight into the response structure 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?

The description is two sentences, each earned: the first states the core purpose (returns connection status and URLs), and the second details the two possible outcomes. It is front-loaded with the primary action and follows up with specifics. No extraneous 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 with no parameters/idempotent and read-only, so the description is sufficient. It explains when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing, covering key scenarios. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens when some providers are connected and others are not, but that's a minor gap for a simple status tool. The annotations and simplicity support a 4.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty (0 properties). With no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4, but the description does not add any parameter-related information because there are none. The description's focus on return values does not compensate for missing parameter semantics, but that's a non-issue. Given no parameters, a score of 3 is reasonable, though arguably could be 4; but since there's no explicit mention of 'no parameters' or similar, I'll stick with 3.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, and specifies the behavior when providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than establishing a connection. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a status check, which could be inferred, but it's quite clear.

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) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' exist, but the description doesn't mention them or explain when to prefer 'authenticate' over 'connect' for initiating authentication. It's contextual but lacking 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing that each consult consumes prepaid credits, that no platform credentials are required, that the data is official and non-confidential, and that the client is the LGPD controller. It does not describe response or failure behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses four concise sentences that each add relevant operational or legal context. It is not bloated, though the ideas 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' are slightly redundant.

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 7 undocumented parameters, the description should explain required inputs and return behavior; it covers payment, credentials, and legal context but leaves renavam/chassi semantics and result shape unspecified. This is insufficient for confident agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 7 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain renavam, chassi, placa, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, or pkcs12_pass, nor which combinations are valid. The tool name suggests the domain, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented 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 opens with 'DETRAN MG: Multas (Extrato), consulta em fonte oficial', clearly naming the resource (DETRAN MG fines extract) and the action (consulta). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from generic sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace.

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 useful context: official source, hosted by the platform, no platform credentials, paid per query with prepaid credits, and LGPD data-controller obligations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context clearly implies when this tool 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?

It discloses that invoke runs an MCP one-off even when not installed, returns a connect link for missing credentials, and a checkout/top-up link for paid tools with empty wallets. It also notes that write actions require workspace owner/admin and that publish_prompt links open without login. These details go well beyond the generic annotations, and there is no 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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, and almost every sentence adds behavioral detail. However, it is a single long paragraph without bullets or section breaks, mixing marketplace workflows, auth/billing behavior, and prompt-library features, which makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main workflows, auth/billing edge cases, and prompt library behavior quite well. It does not specify return shapes for search/describe/list_tools or error handling, but it is sufficient for correct action selection and 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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and does explain action dispatch, mcp_id/tool_id selection, arguments, and prompt variable handling. However, it leaves several parameters undocumented semantically (resume, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, conversation, request_details), so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 by defining the tool as the official marketplace catalog and runtime, explicitly covering capability requests like 'find an MCP that does X' and 'consulta um CPF'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming report_bug and clarifying its role, and the core flow makes the orchestration purpose unmistakable.

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 a clear decision flow: search → describe → invoke, and explicitly says to prefer invoke for one-off use while using install only for permanent toolkit additions. It also tells when to use list_tools, request_mcp, and prompt library functions, giving concrete exclusions and alternatives.

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 communicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the useful detail that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, but it does not describe what happens after reporting or any return/confirmation behavior.

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 with front-loaded action and no filler. Every sentence contributes either purpose or usage guidance.

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 3-parameter tool and available annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps: the 'context' parameter is unexplained, the expected return/confirmation behavior is absent, and the conversation parameter's string format is not clarified. It is a minimal viable description, not a complete one.

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 description clarifies the purpose of the conversation parameter ('recent messages for reproduction'), but schema coverage is 0% and the required 'message' and optional 'context' parameters are not explained. It also calls conversation an 'array' while the schema expects a string, which is a format 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Report') and the resource ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from the unrelated sibling tools such as authenticate, connect, and 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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: for bugs, missing features, or general feedback. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the use cases are specific enough and the siblings are not plausible alternatives.

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, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, output format), so it provides no value beyond the structured fields but does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It is concise and to the point.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully conveys the operation and scope, leaving no ambiguity 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, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). Per rubric, baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning.

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 action ('Show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' by focusing specifically on versions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'toolkit_info' might serve a similar purpose, but the description offers no context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) but doesn't mention potential latency or that data might be stale. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate because it adds some value but not much beyond 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components it covers. Every element earns its place, with zero wasted words. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, and the description covers what it returns in enough detail. It lists all key aspects of the state. However, it doesn't mention whether the results include errors or partial data, but given the simplicity, a 4 is justified. It's complete for a status-inquiry 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 0 parameters, so there's no schema to cover. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description clearly explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter description 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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb-resource pair ('returns the current toolkit state') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' (which likely shows version info) and 'authenticate' (which handles auth).

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 in contexts where you need an overview of the toolkit's setup, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives. Given it's a read-only info tool with no parameters, it's clear when it's appropriate, but explicit exclusions are absent. Still, the tool's nature makes usage obvious, so a 4 is warranted.

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