ECRVSP Documentos: Segunda Via de CRV

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these by explaining the user-interactive browser login, the optional token parameter, and the difference between a permanent header-based connection and a session-only token login. 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 somewhat dense, but each clause provides necessary guidance: targeted audience, browser login, permanent header configuration, session token option, and no-arg behavior. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, though it could be broken into clearer steps.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values are not specified, but for an authentication tool the description covers the user flow, token format, and all invocation modes. It could mention what the response looks like or how the user knows authentication succeeded, but it is not a critical 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for the 'token' parameter. It explains that token is a JWT pasted from the browser, is optional, and how to invoke the tool with or without it. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 that the tool handles authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, explaining the browser login flow and token-based connection. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'connect' tool.

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 concrete usage context: when to use the config-header approach for permanent access versus passing a token for a session-only login. It also tells the user to call with no args to get a link, but it does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives.

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 is fully consistent with them—no contradiction. The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the stateful response behavior: authenticated:true with an empty pending[] signals all providers connected, while missing credentials yield connect_url and per-install URLs. This documents what the tool returns in different states, which is genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't convey.

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 crisp sentences with excellent front-loading: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second details the two outcome states. Every clause earns its place with no fluff. The inline code formatting for 'authenticated:true' and 'pending[]' aids scannability. Slightly more structure or a brief note on partial-connection states could have pushed it higher, but this is disciplined, efficient writing.

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 backed by solid annotations, the description covers the two primary states (all connected, missing credentials) and documents the return fields a caller would need. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of documenting return values, which it discharges reasonably. The main gap: it never addresses what happens in a partial state (e.g., some but not all credential types configured), and it doesn't mention error behavior—minor for such a simple tool, but worth noting.

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 zero parameters, the tool's schema is trivially covered (100% coverage, 0 params), earning the baseline of 4 per the rubric. There is genuinely nothing to add about parameter formats or constraints since the tool takes no input. The description correctly focuses on outputs rather than inputs. No deduction warranted.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies this as a status-inspection tool. The two conditional scenarios ('When all providers are connected...' and 'When credentials are missing...') further clarify the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info,' which could plausibly overlap with connection-status concerns.

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 usage scenario is implied rather than stated: if you want to know the connection state, call this tool. The conditional descriptions hint at when each response pattern appears. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like 'authenticate' for the actual authentication flow, and no exclusion cases. The guidance is entirely implied, never stated.

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 indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the query is performed against official Brazilian sources and involves prepaid credits, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential costs, failure conditions, or data handling specifics beyond the LGPD note, though it does not contradict 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 block of text, somewhat dense but not overly long. It front-loads the main purpose and adds contextual notes about payment and LGPD. However, the structure is not ideal; the last sentence about LGPD control is legal boilerplate that may distract from functional guidance.

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 high complexity (18 params, 13 required, no enums, no output schema) and the fact that the description must compensate for the sparse structured data, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters relate to the query, what types of restrictions are supported, or how the payment flow works in practice.

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 18 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description names none of them explicitly. The description mentions some concepts (like credentials, address, vehicle data) but does not map them to specific parameters or explain their formats or purposes. The description does not compensate for the schema's complete lack of explanatory text.

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 states the tool queries official Brazilian sources to obtain a second copy of a vehicle registration document (CRV). However, the purpose is not sharply differentiated from sibling tools, and the description aggregates multiple meanings (query, document, payment) without specifying the exact action or result.

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 payment via prepaid credits and lack of platform credentials, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context for when not to use it. The mention of LGPD compliance is vague and does not offer practical usage 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?

Even with annotations present, the description adds critical behavioral context: invoke runs a tool one-off without installing it, returns connect/checkout links, writes require workspace owner/admin, and search/describe flag installation state. No contradiction with the annotations, and the disclosure goes well beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 and front-loaded with the core flow, then covers permissions, billing, installed-state flags, and the prompt library. There is little fluff, but the run-on structure and sheer length keep it from being maximally scannable.

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 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers an unusually large amount: core flows, one-off invocation, auth/payment edge cases, permissions, and prompt-library behavior. It is not fully complete (resume is unexplained and individual parameter formats are missing), but it is far above the minimum viable level.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does explain the core roles of action, query, tool_id, and arguments through the search/describe/invoke walkthrough. However, most of the 23 parameters (resume, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_tool, conversation, report_context, etc.) are never explicitly tied to their individual semantics, leaving clear gaps.

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 states this is the official mcp.ai marketplace and clearly explains its two functions: discovering/running MCPs and providing a prompt library. It gives a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke) and explicitly names the major actions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_bug or authenticate.

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 direct decision guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs. 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', plus when to use list_tools, request_mcp, and the prompt-search actions. It also explains what to do when invoke needs credentials or payment, making the when-to-use fairly 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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying this tool performs an action (sending feedback) without destructive effects. The description adds context about including conversation for reproduction, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, data handling) or any limitations. Since the description doesn't contradict annotations and adds some context, a 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the action (report/send). Every word earns its place, stating the purpose and the key instruction about the conversation array.

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?

This is a simple feedback tool with three parameters, none nested, and no output schema. The description covers the essential usage and the important parameter (conversation). The system complexity is low, and the description is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it, though it could mention what happens after submission.

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 explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter by instructing to include recent messages for reproduction. It also implies the 'message' parameter is the main content. However, it doesn't explain the 'context' parameter, but with a default, it can be inferred as optional. Given the low schema coverage, this partial compensation merits a 4.

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.' It uses specific verbs (report, send) and identifies the resource (bug, missing feature, feedback). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the sibling tools have unrelated purposes, so no conflict arises.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: to report bugs, missing features, or feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.

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 aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). It clarifies that it shows current versions, implying no modifications. It doesn't contradict annotationsible. Additional details about output format or error behavior aren't given, but the annotations already convey key aspects.

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, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's function without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured for a simple version check tool.

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 clearly indicates what the tool does but doesn't mention the output format or any prerequisites. Given the presence of readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, it's sufficiently transparent, though it could add that it requires no authentication or that it's safe to call at any time. Still, it's adequate for a version query.

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 parametersigned, and the empty schema with 100% description coverage means no ambiguity. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters because none exist.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it distinct from sibling tools like toolkit_info, which likely provides broader toolkit 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 implicitly suggests when to use this tool (e.g., to check platform/adapter versions), but it does not explicitly mention situations where alternatives should be used. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' are contextually different, so the purpose is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description is consistent with this and adds detail about the returned data without introducing any conflicting or undisclosed side 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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently lists the key components of the toolkit state. It contains no redundant or extraneous information, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures the necessary information about what the tool returns. The annotations complement it with safety details, and there is no missing context for an agent to decide on 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 input schema is empty, so parameter coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-related information because there are no parameters to clarify. Per the rubric, a high schema coverage implies a baseline of 3, and no extra context is provided.

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: returning the current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.

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 context on when to use the tool (to get an overview of the toolkit state) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It is still evident that this is the appropriate tool for retrieving system information.

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