DETRAN PA: Infrações

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

The description explains the behavior of both invocation modes (returns link vs. processes token) and clarifies session persistence. While annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, the description adds context about the permanent vs. session distinction. No contradictions.

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 bit rambling but front-loaded with purpose and structured with 'Best' and 'Or' to guide choices. Each sentence contributes useful information, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage modes and prerequisites. It could mention return values or potential errors, but it's 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste for session login. It also clarifies that omitting the parameter yields the login link. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 it is for authenticating IDE agents, explaining the two authentication methods (permanent via config header, or session-only via token). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on login and token exchange.

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 explicit usage guidance: use no args to get the login link, or pass { token } for session login, and recommends the permanent config method. It also contrasts with the alternative of adding a header, giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing the two possible return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url when credentials are missing), which is useful behavioral context 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes all necessary behavioral detail without any fluff or redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior for a connection-status check. It explains the primary return fields and covers the main edge case (missing credentials), making it complete for an agent to select and 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no params to describe). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter information 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 verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on connection status, and explains two outcome states (authenticated or missing credentials).

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 on when the tool is useful (to check connection status) and explains the different outcomes based on connection state. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit 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 declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, costs are paid via prepaid credits, and data is not confidential. This goes beyond the annotations and explains the operational model and legal responsibilities.

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 reasonably concise but contains redundancy: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' say the same thing. The LGPD legal clause adds length without operational guidance. It is not overly verbose but could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns. It also lacks details on required input formats, error conditions, or pagination. Parameters are unexplained, and the legal/payment information, while useful, does not fill the gap on response shape or usage details.

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 has no descriptions for 'placa' or 'renavam', and the description provides zero parameter information. The agent must infer that 'placa' is a license plate and 'renavam' is a Brazilian vehicle registration number, which is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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: 'DETRAN PA: Infrações, consulta em fonte oficial' – it's a consultation of traffic infractions from DETRAN PA. The verb 'consultar' and resource 'infrações' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling 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?

The description provides context about use (official source, non-sensitive data, LGPD compliance) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred conditions beyond the implied purpose from the name.

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?

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that invoke runs tools one-off without installation, returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are needed, requires workspace owner/admin for writes, and flags installed status in search/describe. It also reveals the prompt library feature and shareable links, adding rich behavioral context not available in 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 dense single paragraph covering a complex multi-action tool. While every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded, the lack of structured formatting (bullets, sections) makes it harder to scan. The length is justified by the tool's breadth, but structure could be improved.

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?

Coverage is strong for a tool with 23 parameters and no output schema: it explains the core flow, permissions, edge cases (connect/checkout links), installed flags, and the prompt library. Minor gaps like explicit return format for search/describe are acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the central action parameter and numerous fields (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, query, prompt_* etc.) in context. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, cancel_comment, etc.) lack explicit description, leaving gaps for less common actions.

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 — a catalog and execution platform for MCPs. It states the core flow (search → describe → invoke), distinguishes from siblings by covering both MCP management and the prompt library, and uses specific verbs like 'discovers', 'returns', 'RUNS', and 'lists'.

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 guides when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp. It also explains the retry behavior after connect/checkout links, providing clear decision rules for the agent.

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 does not disclose any behavioral aspects beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects, confirmation, or limitations. The only extra hint about the conversation array is inconsistent with the schema type, reducing 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?

The description is very concise—two short sentences—with no redundancy. It gets straight 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?

The description lacks essential context: it does not explain expected message format, the role of context, how to serialize the conversation, or any output/confirmation. With no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter (as an array of messages) but contradicts its string type. It does not explain 'message' or 'context'. Given the schema has no descriptions, this is insufficient.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. This is a distinct purpose among the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.), making it 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 implies when to use the tool (when reporting issues or feedback) and gives a specific instruction to include the conversation array. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention prerequisites, so it's 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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. The description adds 'current' implying real-time data, which is a minor behavioral addition. However, it does not disclose output format or potential latency, but for a read-only version tool this is acceptable. It does not contradict 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence. Every word carries meaning: 'Show', 'current', 'MCP platform and adapter versions'. No fluff, no redundancy.

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 version lookup, the description fully covers what an agent needs. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values for such a simple tool. The combination of name, description, and annotations provides a complete picture.

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 description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per rubric, baseline is 4 since there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately avoids inventing 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?

Clear, specific verb ('Show') with specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). Unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate', which serve different purposes. The sibling 'toolkit_info' might overlap, but the version-specific resource here is 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 purpose is so specific that when to use it is self-evident. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated, but none are needed given the narrow scope. The title and description together make the use case obvious, which provides clear context, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds value by specifying what kind of information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like response latency, freshness, or whether it reflects live state. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the key information types. There is zero redundancy, and every part adds value. It is highly efficient.

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, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so by listing the key components. It does not specify the exact format (e.g., whether it's a list of objects, a map, etc.), but for a simple info tool this is adequate. Combined with clear annotations, the description is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain anything about params. No additional meaning is required.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a clear verb+resource with specific scope, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' which 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or alternatives. While it is clearly a read-only info tool, the description does not offer context such as 'Use this to check connection status before calling other tools' or similar. It only states what it does.

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