ECRVSP Processos: Imprimir CRLV-e

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. The description adds context about the JWT token, session vs permanent login, and the two call patterns. It does not describe side effects like state changes, but with annotations present, the extra context on the token format and usage is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and is organized around the two usage modes. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, explaining the token, the config option, and the no-args case. It is not verbose or wasteful.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios, including the permanent and session-based approaches. It does not describe the exact return value of the link call, but that is implicitly clear. Overall, it is complete for this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter is a JWT used for session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. This adds 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 the tool's purpose: to authenticate the user via browser login and token exchange. It specifies the resource (server) and the action (authenticate), and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'show_version' by detailing the two login modes (config header vs session token).

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use each option: permanent via config header vs session-only by passing a token. It also explains the no-args call to get a link. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives to it, but it is clear in its own use case.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) for different connectivity states, which is not available from annotations alone.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then elaborate on conditional behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information 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?

Given the simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main scenarios: all providers connected and missing credentials. It mentions pending[] but does not detail partial connection states, yet this is sufficient for a status-check tool with zero params.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. It effectively communicates the output without 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 tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific behavior for connected vs missing credentials. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication actions.

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 for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. It lacks a clear 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, though the behavior is contextually informative.

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. The description adds valuable behavior context: it is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credits, does not require platform credentials, returns citizen-available official data, and places LGPD compliance responsibility on the client. This is meaningful additional transparency beyond annotations and does not contradict them.

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 front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and is reasonably concise. It adds relevant legal and commercial context without excessive verbosity. It is slightly dense, but every sentence adds information about how the service works, cost, and compliance.

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 having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the expected return value, the exact result of 'Imprimir CRLV-e', or how the credential parameters relate to the official system. It covers commercial and legal context well but leaves functional invocation details, including success and error behavior, unsolved. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool 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 schema has 8 parameters and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameters, such as the relationship between a3/a3_pin/login_cpf/login_senha or optional cpf/cnpj. It only hints at paid consultations, not which parameter maps to credentials, vehicle, or renavam. With such low schema coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not.

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: 'Imprimir CRLV-e, consulta em fonte oficial.' It identifies the tool as an official Brazilian vehicle document consultation and printing service, which is distinct from the generic sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug. The scope is further clarified by mentioning the official source and citizen-available 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 implies when to use the tool: when needing to query or print CRLV-e from official sources. It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, and sibling tools are too generic, so there is little need for differentiation. However, there is no guidance about prerequisites, such as having prepaid credit or login credentials, beyond the fact that payment is required.

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 goes far beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing key behaviors: invoke runs one-off without installing, install makes an MCP permanent, writes require workspace owner/admin, and paid/credentialed tools return checkout/connect links. It also explains that search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace, adding useful operational 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but every sentence carries substantive information about the marketplace flow, install vs invoke tradeoffs, auth/billing behavior, and the prompt library. It could be improved with bullet separation or per-action breakdown, but it remains readable and 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 complex 23-parameter dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers the main actions and workflows convincingly: search, describe, invoke, install, uninstall, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt operations. It omits the resume action and does not describe return shapes for search/describe/list_tools, but the core operational story is complete enough for an agent to act.

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 does compensate for several core params by explaining action=search, action=describe, action=invoke, and prompt-related actions. However, it never explains many other parameters like limit, query, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, cancel_comment, report_context, or the resume action, leaving meaningful 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 opens with a specific definition: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It clearly explains the search → describe → invoke flow and distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as both catalog and execution layer for MCPs.

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 explicit usage direction: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now.' It also tells the agent what to do when invoke returns a connect or checkout link, and when to use request_mcp instead of searching.

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 minimal behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the purpose of the conversation field for reproduction but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or expected outcomes. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-read-only, so the description adds limited new 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?

The description is extremely concise, fitting into one efficient sentence that covers the tool's purpose and a key usage note. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter formats, return behavior, and side effects, which are necessary for a complete understanding, especially given the lack of annotations or 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%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It only mentions 'conversation array' without specifying the 'message' (required) or 'context' fields. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use all three 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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the function is unambiguous and distinct from the listed siblings.

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 only usage hint is 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which is a minor instruction rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No when/when-not or exclusions are provided, and siblings like 'ecrvsp_processos_crlve_consultar' are not referenced.

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 behavioral safety is covered. Description adds that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which is specific but does not describe output format or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is adequate.

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, exactly 8 words, zero waste. Front-loaded with 'Show' verb and resource. Ideal conciseness for a trivial no-parameter 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does (shows versions) and is sufficient for selection. An output schema could clarify return value structure, but for a simple version query this is not critical. Loses a point for not describing what the output looks like, but not a major 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?

Tool has zero parameters. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds the semantic detail of what data it returns (versions), which is helpful. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate; description could have elaborated on the output, but it's clear enough.

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?

Specific verb 'show' + clear resource 'MCP platform and adapter versions'. Distinguishes from siblings like authenticate, connect, which serve different purposes. The description is explicit and 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 this tool is for checking versions, likely when troubleshooting or verifying installation. But no explicit 'use when' or 'alternative' is provided. Sibling tools have distinct names, but no guidance on when to prefer this over e.g., toolkit_info. Lacks exclusions or 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 read-only and idempotent behaviors. The description adds concrete details about the returned data (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the tool's output.

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 lists the output components without any fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and directly communicates the tool's function.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context about what the tool returns. It gives a complete enumeration of the state information, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's functionality.

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 (schema with no properties), so parameter coverage is complete by default. The description correctly avoids any parameter explanations. Given the baseline of 4 for no parameters, no deduction is needed.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This 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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. It implies general introspection use but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios where it should be preferred over other tools.

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