DETRAN PR: Emissão de CRLV-e

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds details about persistence: config header yields permanent non-expiring connection, while pasted token is session-only. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the functional outcome of each method, without contradicting any hints.

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 functional but somewhat verbose, weaving purpose, recommendations, and usage into a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the purpose but could be tightened; every sentence adds value, yet the structure is not crisp.

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 (single optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers both invocation patterns (with/without token) and the persistence trade-offs. It does not explicitly mention success/failure responses, but for an auth tool a link generation and session establishment are sufficiently implied.

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 sole parameter 'token' is documented as an optional JWT that can be passed for session login, and its purpose is explained in the description ('call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes'). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by clarifying the parameter's meaning and optionality.

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 an authentication tool for logging in and obtaining/copying an access token. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' or 'report_bug' by focusing on credential handling.

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 explains two usage modes: permanent config-based header and session-based token paste, with explicit instructions for calling with or without the token parameter. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or references to alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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 and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the response shape under two conditions: authenticated providers vs missing credentials, which goes beyond the annotations. This helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by conditional details. No filler words or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the main return states: all connected and credentials missing, listing the relevant fields. It could potentially elaborate on partial connection states, but for a simple status tool, this is adequately 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 is trivially complete. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters, and since there are none, there is no additional meaning needed. Baseline 4 applies for 0-param tools.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication. It also explains conditional return values, making the purpose 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 usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate' or state when not to use it. The conditional behavior suggests when to call it (when needing to check authentication state), but there are no explicit usage guidelines or 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit required, data is not confidential, and client is data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond annotations and 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?

The description is a single paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose. It includes legal and payment details that add value. Slightly verbose but each sentence contributes to understanding usage.

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 has 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should detail parameter formats, expected input values, and return data. It only states the purpose and general conditions, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain any of the 6 required parameters (login, senha, renavam, placa, cnpj, cpf_agendamento). It mentions 'consulta' but gives no clues about what each parameter should contain. Description fails to compensate for 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 issues CRLV-e (Brazilian vehicle registration) from an official source. It distinguishes from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which are unrelated. The verb+resource is specific.

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 when to use the tool (for CRLV-e queries from official sources) and provides context about payment model and LGPD compliance. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but siblings are unrelated.

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 include readOnlyHint=false (writes possible) and destructiveHint=false, but description goes far beyond: explains write operations require owner/admin, invoke works even when MCP not installed, returns connect or checkout links when needed, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. 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?

Long but information-dense paragraph; front-loaded with core purpose, then branches into invoke vs install, then permissions, then prompt library. While long, each sentence adds meaningful guidance—no fluff. Slightly could be split into sections but appropriate for a multi-action 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?

Highly complete: covers all action types, workflow, special cases (credential/connect link, payment/checkout), permissions, prompt library distinction, and installation states. Given no output schema and 23 parameters, this is robust enough for an agent to navigate 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?

Schema has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the core action enum values (search, describe, install, etc.) and references tool_id, action, arguments (via 'invoke RUNS that tool'), and prompt-related params. Could be more explicit about arguments/message but adequately covers the main workflow.

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 marketplace tool's purpose as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution interface, with specific verbs for each action (search, describe, invoke, install). It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the central marketplace orchestrator vs. specialized tools like authenticate and 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off runs vs. install for permanent additions, lists when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp. Also explains the core flow action=search → describe → invoke and when to use prompt library actions.

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, but the description does not discuss behavior beyond the basic function. It mentions including conversation array for reproduction, which is useful, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending data externally) or clarify the idempotent nature. Without annotations like readOnlyHint, the description carries burden but only partially addresses 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?

The description is two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. It earns its place by adding the reproduction hint, but could be slightly more structured without being verbose.

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 there is no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what response to expect, nor does it fully describe each parameter's purpose. The tool's complexity is low, but for a feedback tool, more context on data usage and expected outcomes would be beneficial.

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 for parameter meaning. It mentions 'conversation array' for reproduction, which clarifies the conversation parameter, but does not explain 'message' or 'context' beyond schema. The description provides minimal additional semantics for the required 'message' parameter.

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 states the tool reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, which is a clear purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'marketplace' or 'authenticate', but could be more specific about the action (e.g., 'creates a report').

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 on when to use (reporting bugs/feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. It implies usage for reporting issues, but lacks explicit guidance on when other tools might be more 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific scope of 'MCP platform and adapter versions' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or whether it makes network calls. This is sufficient for such a simple tool but not exemplary.

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 fully expresses the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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, the absence of an output schema, and the rich annotations, the description is complete. An agent can confidently invoke this tool knowing exactly what it does and that it is a safe, read-only operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set.

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') and identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and distinct 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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving version information. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but none are needed given the unique purpose. It could be improved by stating when one might need this (e.g., for compatibility checks), but the basic applicability is obvious.

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 description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the specific pieces of state returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count), which goes beyond the annotations. There is 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and efficiently enumerates the returned components without redundancy. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's function.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count). It doesn't specify the exact format or structure, but for a simple state-report tool, this is sufficient. The sibling tools and annotations provide additional context, so the description is contextually 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 description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and any explanation would be unnecessary.

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 states exactly what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version by focusing on MCP state details.

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 clearly defines what the tool returns, giving implied context for when to use it (checking toolkit state). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version or marketplace, nor any exclusions. The purpose is clear but usage guidance is only implicit.

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