DETRAN SP: Emissão de CRLV-e

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds behavioral details: it explains the permanent vs session-only nature (persistence), how to trigger the login link, and the parameter usage. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context about the token lifecycle.

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 long, but the first sentence packs a lot of context ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') that may be slightly ambiguous. It is still structured clearly, with the main flow and alternatives in logical order, and 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage and parameters. It doesn't explain return values, but none are specified in the schema, so that is acceptable. It could mention what happens if token is invalid, but overall it's complete 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must fully explain the only parameter 'token'. It explicitly states that calling with { token: '<jwt>' } is for session login after pasting, and that calling with no args returns the link. This gives complete semantic meaning beyond 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 it is for authenticating (logging in, getting/passing an access token). It's specific about the MCP.AI context for IDE agents sterile and details two usage modes josé, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect' which might also handle connections.

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 clear instructions: browser login, copy token, best practice of adding to config as permanent header, or pasting via parameter for session-only. Also explains calling with no args returns the link. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'connect' or state when not to use this tool.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about conditional responses, including authenticated:true, empty pending[], and the presence of connect_url when credentials are missing.

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 useful detail about expected outputs under different conditions.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description explains the main success and failure-here-missing-credential cases well. It could be slightly clearer about partial connection states, but overall it is sufficient for such a simple tool.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than inputs.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also specifies the conditions under which different payloads are returned, which distinguishes it from 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 implies that this tool should be used to check whether providers are connected and to obtain connection URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as authenticate as the next step.

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?

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: prepaid credits, no platform credentials needed, hosted by the platform, and LGPD controller obligations, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond 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 moderately concise but includes legal and operational notes (LGPD, prepaid, hosting) that earn their place for transparency. It is structured as a single block with front-loaded purpose, though the LGPD sentence is lengthy and could be shortened without losing 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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description provides operational context (prepaid credit, official source, non-confidential data) but omits parameter semantics entirely and does not explain what a successful response contains or possible failure modes. The annotations cover safety, but parameter ambiguity is a clear gap.

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 provides no parameter-level details. It only mentions 'login_senha' indirectly as 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (without platform credentials), which is confusing since a 'login_senha' parameter exists. The required fields (placa, renavam, login_senha) are not explained, leaving their meaning ambiguous.

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 emits CRLV-e from official DETRAN SP sources, which is specific. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools, though siblings are mostly unrelated (auth, marketplace, etc.), so a clear purpose is present but not explicitly differentiated.

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 consulting official Brazilian vehicle data via prepaid credits, and notes it is not confidential data. It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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 richly discloses behaviors beyond annotations, including one-off execution details: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off)'. It also explains auth and billing side effects (connect link, checkout/top-up link) and that writes require owner/admin. This goes far beyond the given annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 well-structured, starting with a clear overview, then the core flow, then edge cases like auth and billing. Every sentence adds value, though the inclusion of both marketplace and prompt library content makes it somewhat dense. Minor redundancy ('without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list') exists, but overall it is efficient for the tool's 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 high complexity (14 actions, billing, auth, prompt library) and absence of an output schema, the description covers most essential contexts: search/describe behavior, invoke failure modes (credentials, payment), install/permission rules, prompt library usage, and report/request actions. Missing details like what `resume` does or the meaning of `immediate` prevent a perfect score, but it is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate. It explains core parameters like action, tool_id, and arguments indirectly, but leaves many parameters undocumented (e.g., limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, cancel_reason). The description gives a high-level overview of actions but not enough per-parameter detail to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies the resource (MCPs, tools, prompt library) and the main actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt management), distinguishing it from sibling tools by covering a broad marketplace role.

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 usage guidance with a clear core flow ('search → describe → invoke') and alternatives: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', plus a mention of when to use list_tools and prompt search. It also states permission requirements for writes (owner/admin), which is crucial for when to use.

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 cover the side-effect profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that conversation history should be sent for reproduction, but it does not explain what happens after the report is submitted or any auth/rate-limit implications.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides a critical usage instruction.

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 reporting tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves one parameter ('context') unexplained and does not describe the outcome or response after reporting. The annotations cover side effects, so this is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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 partially explains the 'conversation' parameter (recent messages for reproduction) and implies what 'message' is for, but it leaves 'context' completely undefined. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions.

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 ('Report') and clearly names the resources/topics: bugs, missing features, and feedback. This fully distinguishes the tool from its unrelated siblings and matches its title.

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 communicates clear use cases (bug, missing feature, feedback) and gives practical usage guidance by telling the caller to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated and no exclusions are needed.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific scope (MCP platform and adapter versions), which is useful context. No additional behavioral traits are needed for this simple read-only operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It could potentially mention that it returns version strings, but that's implied by the nature of the tool. A minor gap, so 4.

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)Skip the schema baseline. Since there are no parameters, the description correctly doesn't need to document them. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which likely provides more comprehensive kit information.

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 states the tool's purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like toolkit_info. For a trivial informational tool, this is acceptable, but a note about when not to use it (e.g., for deeper diagnostics) would improve it.

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 this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers safety. The description adds useful detail about what state it returns (installed MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond annotations. It does not describe return formatting or whether the data might be stale, but the core behavior is 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 a single, front-loaded sentence: the verb 'Returns' leads with the action, followed by a colon and a clear list of delivered information. Every item in the list adds value with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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, a straightforward informational purpose), the description adequately grounds an agent's expectations by naming all content of the returned state. It could mention potential prerequisites like prior authentication, but since it returns the current state regardless, this is not a significant gap.

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 covers this completely (empty properties). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description doesn't need to add parameter info, and it doesn't. It does clarify that the tool takes no input by implication, which is sufficient.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (version info) and marketplace (available integrations).

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 should be used when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current connections and MCP availability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as show_version or marketplace, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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