DETRAN SC: Guias de Débitos

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

The description explains how to invoke the tool but does not disclose any side effects, return values, or failure modes. While the annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description itself lacks explicit behavioral details, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's actual effects.

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, but it is well-organized into a clear sequence: first stating the tool, then giving best practice, then an alternative. The structure aids comprehension despite the length, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for any agent to understand when and how to use it. It covers the primary use case and the alternative, making it complete for typical 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 single 'token' parameter is thoroughly explained: it can be a JWT for session login, and it can be omitted to obtain a login link. The description clarifies both the meaning and the optional nature of the parameter, fully covering the 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: authentication for IDE agents, with explicit instructions for both permanent and session-based login. It distinctly identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism, differentiating 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?

The description provides detailed, step-by-step usage instructions, including two distinct methods (permanent configuration vs session-based token) and explains the exact call syntax for each. It clearly advises on the best practice (adding to server config) and makes the usage context unambiguous.

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, and the description adds valuable condition-dependent behavior: the difference between connected and missing-credential responses, including the presence of connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not describe output shape in full detail.

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 each sentence adds meaningful information. There is no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers both relevant states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and indicates the key returned data. Nothing critical is 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so parameter clarity is inherently sufficient. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the 100% schema coverage confirms nothing is hidden.

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 explicit details about response fields ('authenticated:true', 'empty pending[]') and distinct behavior when credentials are missing. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URLs 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 conditional contexts: when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, which implies use as a status/readiness check. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as 'authenticate'.

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 significant transparency beyond the readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations by disclosing the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, uses prepaid credit per query, and provides data source information (official Brazilian sources, same as available to citizens, not confidential data). This addresses the annotations and adds value beyond what structured fields 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, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential context (hosting, credentials, payment, data source, LGPD compliance). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers key aspects: purpose, data source, authentication model, payment model, and legal compliance (LGPD). Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, 2 required), it is reasonably complete, although it could mention rate limits or typical response structure. The presence of annotations compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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%, meaning the description provides no parameter-level details. The parameters (placa, renavam, login_cpf, etc.) are left entirely to the schema. The description does not compensate for this gap, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema exists but the description adds no 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 the tool's purpose: consulting DETRAN SC debt guides ('Guias de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial'). It uses a specific verb ('consultar') and resource ('Guias de Débitos'), and the title provides the naming context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the verb+resource structure is present.

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 by stating it consults official Brazilian sources and mentions payment method (prepaid credit). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context of consulting official sources is clear.

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 are minimal (readOnly=false, openWorld=true), so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: invoke works one-off without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, writes require owner/admin, and search/describe flag 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?

The description is long but dense; each sentence adds essential operational detail, from core flow to permissions and prompt library. It is logically structured and avoids redundancy, though it could be tightened by splitting into bullets for readability.

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 complex tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description covers major behaviors: discovery, one-off invocation, auth/billing links, permission requirements, installed status, and the prompt library. Some specifics like exact return structures for search/describe are absent, but overall it is quite 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?

Schema coverage is 0% across 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the action enum values via the core flow (search, describe, invoke), the role of tool_id, and prompt vars/slugs, but it does not detail all parameters such as cancel_reason, report_context, or prompt_targets. Still, it adds significant context for the most critical 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?

The description clearly identifies the marketplace as a dual-purpose catalog-and-runner tool, outlining a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the central MCP discovery and execution hub, and it differentiates among its own actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and covers request_mcp for new MCPs, report_bug for feedback, and subscribe/cancel for billing. It also contrasts invoke with install, making the decision clear.

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 readOnlyHint=false, but do not indicate destructive side effects. The description adds the behavioral instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it sends data externally) or any side effects. 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 two sentences, each with clear intent. It front-loads the purpose and then gives a specific usage hint. 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 relatively simple (3 params, 1 required, no output schema), but the description covers the main purpose and hints at the conversation usage. However, it lacks details on the return value (none specified) and does not explain the 'context' field at all. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 has to compensate. It mentions the conversation array and its purpose, but does not explain the 'message' or 'context' parameters beyond what their names imply. It does not clarify required vs optional, or the format of the conversation array despite the default value. The description adds minimal value over the 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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings, which are mostly unrelated (auth, download, marketplace). However, it could be more precise about what 'feedback' includes, but it's clear enough.

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 (when there's a bug or feedback) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion, but no guidance on what to do instead. The schema's 'context' field is not explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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, fully covering safety. The description adds valuable context by specifying what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), which goes 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it optimally 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke it 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, so per baseline rules a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist, and the schema confirms no 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace. The purpose is 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 the tool is for checking version information but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. Since no sibling tool serves this exact purpose, the context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds output detail (installed MCPs, connection status, etc.) but no additional behavioral traits beyond that. 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and provides complete information without any fluff.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool returns and its purpose. It is complete in the given context.

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. The description provides no parameter info, but that's unnecessary given there are none.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'toolkit state', enumerating specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect, which perform actions, and show_version, which provides 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 for checking toolkit status and is self-explanatory. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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