DETRAN RN: Veículo

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the side effects of each invocation mode (permanent vs session, getting a link). It aligns with idempotentHint=true (safe to call repeatedly) and doesn't contradict any annotation, though it could be more explicit about the lack of destructive 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 packs a lot of information into two sentences, but the second sentence is a run-on with multiple clauses separated by 'or'. It's efficient but could benefit from clearer partitioning for easier parsing by an agent.

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's no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios (config, session, no-args). However, it doesn't mention what the response looks like or error handling, which could be useful for agents to handle failures gracefully.

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 fully compensates by detailing the optional 'token' parameter, showing an example of its value, and explaining the no-args behavior. This gives agents complete understanding of how to use the parameter without schema hints.

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 authenticate MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on authentication and token management.

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?

Usage is well-guided: it explains when to use the config header for permanent connections vs session-only tokens. It also describes the no-args case. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like 'connect', slightly reducing clarity.

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, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: what fields appear under different authentication states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the bare read-only nature, providing useful response context.

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, then concisely explains the two conditional responses. No wasted words; every clause 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?

For a stateless, parameterless read tool with strong annotations, the description covers all relevant states (connected vs missing credentials) and the expected outputs. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return shape adequately for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't detract. The conditional URL behavior adds relevant context without parameter dependencies.

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', a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than actions, and the conditional details about authenticated:true and URLs add clarity.

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 it: to check connection status and get URLs, with clear states for connected vs missing credentials. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when...', though the sibling context makes it fairly 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?

It discloses that the service is hosted, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query, uses official non-confidential data, and places data control responsibility on the client (LGPD). This goes beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent) by explaining cost and data responsibility, though it doesn't address rate limits or failure modes.

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 somewhat verbose and repetitive, repeating phrases about official sources and LGPD. It could be more concise, but it is structured in a way that conveys the essential points without being excessively long.

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 providing context about payment and data handling, it lacks information about the expected output (what vehicle data is returned), the purpose of login credentials or certificates, and how the prepaid credit system works. With an output schema absent, the description should have covered more operational 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 six parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not explain any of them. It only implied placa and renavam via the vehicle context, but login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, and pkcs12_pass are unexplained. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it 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 this is a vehicle query tool from an official source (DETRAN RN), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authentication or connection utilities. However, it could be more specific about returning vehicle information based on plate and RENAVAM, but the purpose is understood.

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 mentions it is hosted and paid with prepaid credits, giving some usage context, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide scenario guidance. It implies usage for official vehicle data queries but lacks explicit 'when to use' instructions.

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 (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description reveals that invoke runs tools even when not installed, returns connect/checkout links and asks you to retry after the user acts, and that install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel require owner/admin. This adds critical operational behavior not present 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 long but every sentence adds necessary detail for a complex multi-action tool. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and core flow. Minor formatting improvements (bullets) could enhance scannability, but 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?

For a tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers permissions, payment/credential flows, install vs invoke semantics, installed flag hints, and the prompt library. It omits explicit return-value details for search/describe, but overall it is remarkably complete for 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 description coverage and 23 parameters, the description compensates by explaining the action enum and core parameters like tool_id, mcp_id, and arguments in context. However, it does not systematically cover many parameters (e.g., prompt_targets, cancel_comment, report_context), leaving some ambiguity. It partially bridges the gap but not fully.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace and the way to run MCPs. It specifies the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes invoke (one-off) from install (permanent), which separates it from sibling tools like connect or report_bug.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use invoke for single/occasional use, install for permanent additions, list_tools for currently callable tools, and prefer search/describe to explore. It also explains when credentials or payment are needed (connect/checkout links) and says writes require workspace owner/admin.

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 adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful. Annotations already cover read-only/destructive/idempotent hints, so the bar is lower. However, it does not disclose what the tool does after submission (e.g., sends a report, creates a ticket) or clarify the idempotent 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 one sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a necessary hint about reproduction. No 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, so return values need not be described. The core behavior is clear, but the 'context' parameter is left undocumented, and no mention is made of expected response behavior. Adequate but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), while 'message' and 'context' are not elaborated. Since 'message' is required and 'context' is completely unexplained, the description fails to fully cover parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are about authentication, marketplace, version, and 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 clearly implies when to use the tool—when a bug, missing feature, or feedback needs to be reported. It does not name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve this purpose, and the usage 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context by specifying it returns platform and adapter versions, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's scope.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it 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?

For a simple version-checking tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys what to expect. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any param-related 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 the verb 'Show' and the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is specific and unambiguous, and none of the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) appear to handle version information, so it distinguishes effectively.

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 the tool is for checking versions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. It doesn't state scenarios or exclusions, so guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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, which strongly convey the tool's safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact data fields returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is 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 a single, tightly packed sentence that immediately states the action and result. It lists the key returned components in a logical sequence with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming the major sections. It lacks precise formatting details (e.g., JSON structure), but for a read-only summary tool, the level of detail is adequate for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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%, so there is no parameter detail to add. The description compensates by explaining the output scope, which is the primary way this tool adds value; baseline 4 is appropriate for param-less 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This differentiates it from siblings like show_version by covering a broader status overview.

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 context by detailing what the tool reports, which is appropriate for an agent needing to inspect toolkit state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list (authenticate, connect, show_version) makes the tool's niche clear without further guidance.

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