DETRAN RJ: Veículo

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the config-header approach creates a permanent, non-expiring connection, while pasting the token yields session-only login, and no-args returns a link. This adds practical behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations, though response/error behavior is not covered.

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 but well-structured, beginning with the tool's context and then laying out two clear usage paths. Each sentence contributes actionable information, though the final sentence is slightly long and combines multiple behaviors.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations already indicating idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description covers the key login/token workflow and permanent-vs-session distinction. It does not describe the success/failure response, but the auth flow is otherwise sufficiently specified.

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 defines an optional token string with no description. The description compensates by specifying the token is a JWT pasted by the user and that calling with no args produces an authentication link. This adds meaning 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 the tool's purpose: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in, obtaining an access token, and using it either as a header or as a passed token. It specifies the resource and action with concrete steps, and differentiates from generic 'connect' by focusing on browser login and token 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?

The description gives explicit usage scenarios: permanent connection via config header, session-only login via pasted token, or no-args call to get the link. It provides clear context and mode selection, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable state-dependent details: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

Two concise sentences fully convey the tool's purpose and conditional outcomes. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause provides useful information without 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 the tool has no input schema, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description is complete. It covers both success and failure modes, including the structure of the response (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and the addition of per-install URLs when credentials are missing.

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 parameter-specific guidance is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description compensates by explaining what the tool returns under different credential states.

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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: connection status and URLs. It also describes the exact output conditions, which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than performing authentication.

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 situational context: use this tool to check whether all providers are connected and to obtain connection URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditional behavior makes its intended use clear enough.

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 valuable operational context beyond these: 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (no platform credentials needed), 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' (prepaid payment per query), and data-handling responsibility under LGPD. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes redundant phrasing about official sources and a legal LGPD disclaimer that adds length without directly aiding tool invocation. It is still relatively compact, but not every sentence 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?

With no output schema and no return-value description, the tool lacks information about what the response contains (e.g., vehicle model, status, fines). It adequately covers payment and credentials but omits plate format, output structure, and usage constraints. For a one-parameter tool, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 has one required string parameter 'placa' but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description never mentions 'placa' nor provides format guidance, such as expected plate format or normalization. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 a DETRAN RJ vehicle consultation from an official source ('Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial') and states it queries information from official Brazilian agencies. It is easily distinguishable from generic sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace, though it does not specify exactly which vehicle attributes are returned.

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 useful context—official source, no platform credentials, prepaid credit per query, and LGPD responsibility—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or direct references to sibling lookup tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than 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?

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by revealing important behavioral traits: invoke runs one-off without installing, permissions required for writes ('require workspace owner/admin'), and the return of connect or checkout links for missing credentials/payment. These are not disclosed in the annotations, making the description highly transparent.

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 but appropriately so for a tool with 14 actions and multiple sub-flows. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. Minor redundancy (e.g., one-off install behavior mentioned twice) prevents a top score, but it remains efficient for the complexity.

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 thoroughly covers the main flows, permission requirements, auth/payment fallbacks, and the prompt library. However, the lack of parameter-level details and the absence of an output schema mean the agent still has significant gaps to resolve, so it is not fully 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only explicitly names action, tool_id, and arguments. Many parameters (e.g., prompt_title, prompt_body, request_details, cancel_reason, conversation, tier_slug) are never explained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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 official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' and lays out the core search → describe → invoke flow. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug by defining its unique scope as a discovery and execution 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 provides explicit usage 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 list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library actions, with clear alternatives and 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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, sends an email) or any side effects, but given the annotations cover safety, this is acceptable.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place, and it includes a practical instruction about including the conversation array. No 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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and hints at the conversation parameter's use, but it does not explain the 'context' parameter or provide details on expected message format. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be more complete by explaining all parameters and the expected outcome.

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 mentions 'conversation array' and 'recent messages', which aligns with the 'conversation' parameter, and 'message' is implied as the main content. However, it does not explain the 'context' parameter at all, and the description does not fully clarify the format or purpose of each parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema has defaults and types, the description adds some value but not 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It specifies the resource (the tool/system) and the action (report/send), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user feedback rather than operations like authentication or vehicle consultation.

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 (when reporting issues or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a hint about including conversation context for reproduction, which gives some usage context, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the plain fact of showing versions; there's no mention of output format, network calls, or potential errors. Since annotations cover the main concerns, 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, direct sentence that conveys exactly what is needed with no padding. It is front-loaded with the action. Perfectly concise.

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 trivially simple (0 params, no output schema), so a brief description suffices. However, it could mention what the version info includes (e.g., whether it's a JSON object with details) or note that it's a quick read operation opportunistically. Still, with good annotations and no params, it's nearly complete, though adding a note about output would push it to 5.

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)Skip baseline 4, and the schema coverage is 100% (no props). The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning as none exist, so a score of 4 is fair, giving full credit for the simplicity.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It's concise and specific with a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), and it distinguishes from siblings (e.g., toolkit_info) by focusing on version info.

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 as a quick informational query, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like toolkit_info. Given the simple nature, this is adequate but could be improved with a hint about using it to verify compatibility or versions.

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 doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable context about what the toolkit state contains (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which is beyond the structured annotations. No contradictory behavior is described.

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 that front-loads the verb 'Returns' and immediately specifies the output contents. Every phrase is informative and there is no wasted wording.

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 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect. The enumerated return fields give sufficient context for tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the return value. Nothing is missing.

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 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'current toolkit state'. It enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it distinct from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, 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?

The description implies this is for checking the overall toolkit status, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of a sibling like connect or show_version. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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