DETRAN SC: Veículo (Extrato)

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical context: it explains that calling with no args returns a link, that pasting a token enables session-only login, and that adding to config gives non-expiring access. This goes beyond annotations, clarifying the tool's behavior in different usage scenarios.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the audience and main action, then provides clear branching options. Every sentence adds value, and it's concise 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple authentication methods) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it in each mode, prerequisites (browser login), and alternatives. It's complete and self-contained.

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 token parameter has 0% schema coverage, but the description explains its meaning: it's the JWT to paste for session login. However, it doesn't mention that token is optional (since required is 0) explicitly, but the description implies that by saying 'or with no args', which is adequate.

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 for authentication, providing a login link or accepting a token. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only auth-related tool among them, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 when-to-use guidance: it explains the two modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token), when to call with no args (to get link), and when to call with token (after user pastes). It even mentions best practice for permanent connection, which is explicit 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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by describing the specific response variants (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_urls when credentials are missing), which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about expected outputs.

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 every sentence adds value. It is compact with no redundant words or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description covers the main behavioral outcomes for both connected and unconnected states. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect, though it could optionally mention error cases or how to use the returned URLs, but these are minor omissions.

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 (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and none are lost. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description meets that without introducing any confusion.

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 details on the response for both connected and missing-credential scenarios. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate', which likely performs the actual authentication, and other tools that have 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is a status check (returning connection state and URLs), but it does not mention when to call it, such as before authentication, or how it differs from 'authenticate'. No when-not or alternative references are provided.

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=true, idempotent=true, and non-destructive, and the description adds value by disclosing the payment model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and that it requires no platform credentials but may require separate login fields. It also clarifies data control and LGPD compliance, 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 compact but includes a few redundant details like the LGPD disclaimer, which, while relevant, could be trimmed. It front-loads purpose and payment, making the core information accessible early, but the legal statement adds length without aiding tool invocation.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description does not sufficiently explain how to invoke the tool or what result to expect. It does not mention the required placa and renavam fields or the response format, leaving a significant informational gap for the agent.

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% and the description does not mention any of the six parameters (placa, renavam, login_cpf, etc.). There is no explanation of what each parameter means, which inputs are required, or their format. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 performs a 'consulta' (query) of vehicle extract data from DETRAN SC, an official source. The verb and resource are explicit, and the scope (vehicle extract from DETRAN SC) distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like authenticate or 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?

The description gives context about payment and the official nature of the data but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks clear guidance on when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works even when MCP is not installed, performs a one-off install, returns connect/checkout links when auth or payment is needed, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. These operational details are not present in the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true) and are critical for correct invocation.

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 justified by the tool's complexity (14 actions, two sub-features). The first sentence provides an immediate summary, and each subsequent sentence adds operational detail. Some sentences are long and packed, but they are all relevant; a bit of restructuring could improve scannability, yet it earns its length.

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?

Covers the majority of actions: search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library. Explains return artifacts (connect links, checkout links, prompt slug). Omissions include the 'resume' action and some parameters (tier_slug, immediate), but the core workflow is fully specified. Given no output schema, this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning to key parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_body, and prompt_vars. It explains the action flow (search → describe → invoke), but does not cover all 23 parameters (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug, resume) explicitly. Still, it compensates well for the schema's silence.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies the exact scope (catalog + execution) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its unique position as the in-platform catalog and runtime.

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 instructions: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now.' Also warns that writes 'require workspace owner/admin,' establishing clear prerequisites. This goes beyond simple capability listing to guide action selection.

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 cover idempotency and destructive hints, but the description adds no further clarification on side effects (e.g., ticket creation, notifications). It only mentions including conversation data, which is more of a parameter hint than behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured, using two clear sentences. It avoids unnecessary details and effectively communicates the core purpose and a key usage hint.

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, but the description lacks details about the outcome (e.g., what happens after reporting) and does not fully specify the expected format of the conversation parameter. While it covers the basics, it is not complete for a full understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 zero descriptions, and the description partially clarifies the conversation parameter by mentioning 'conversation array' for reproduction. However, it does not explain the 'context' parameter or the structure of 'conversation', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. This is distinct from sibling tools like authentication or marketplace, making its function 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 (e.g., when a bug is encountered) but does not explicitly differentiate it from alternatives or state when not to use it. The instruction to include conversation data provides some usage guidance, but it lacks explicit selection criteria.

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 annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming the show intent, which is redundant but not contradictory.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition, perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only operation with no parameters or output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns (version information), making it complete for the user.

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 there is nothing to explain; the description correctly omits any parameter 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 action ('Show') and the target resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is specific and distinguishes the tool from potential siblings that might query other system 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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the simplicity and obvious intent make it acceptable; still, the rubric rewards explicit statements of usage context.

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 safety profile is well-covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the specific data returned. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 strong annotations, the description is complete. It clearly enumerates what the user will learn from the output. It could potentially mention that this is a snapshot or that it doesn't modify anything, but the annotations already cover that. The description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously true). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there's nothing to document, and the description correctly focuses on the return value instead.

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 the current toolkit state, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it 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 implies this is a diagnostic/informational tool to check the toolkit state, which is clear from the context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the sibling tools (authenticate, connect) are clearly different actions. A slight deduction for not explicitly stating when not to use it.

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