INCRA SIGEF: Planta

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it explains the flow (browser login, copy token), and clarifies that passing a token yields a session-only login while omitting args returns a link. It also hints at side effects (no mention of side effects, but it's clear it's an authentication setup). It doesn't contradict annotations; the idempotency is consistent with the description of getting a link or accepting a token. The description doesn't go into details about what happens on repeated calls, but given the annotations, this 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?

The description is a single run-on sentence that's information-dense but a bit rambling. It conveys a lot: audience (IDE agents), the flow (browser login, copy token), a best practice (add to server config), the alternative (session-only), and the exact call pattern. However, it's not front-loaded with the most critical info; the tool's purpose is stated first but the structure could be improved. It's a bit clunky but not overly long. It could be tightened into clearer sentences, but it earns its place.

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 param, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, the different usage modes (with/without token), and the recommended configuration approach. It could have mentioned error cases (what if the token is invalid?) or clarified whether it returns anything, but with no output schema, that's less critical. The description covers the essential behavior and the user interaction flow, which is likely sufficient 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 schema has only one optional parameter 'token', and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the description explicitly explains the parameter's meaning: after the user pastes the token, call with { token: "<jwt>" }, or call with no args to get the link. This fully covers the semantics of the single parameter. Baseline for 0-1 params is 4, but since the description does explain it though not extensively, a 3 is fair because the explanation is embedded in a longer sentence and could be clearer about the type/format of the token beyond being a JWT.

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 and resource: it authenticates an MCP server/IDE agent by logging in via browser and providing an access token. It's distinguishable from siblings like 'connect' because it explicitly mentions login, browser, and token exchange, whereas 'connect' is a sibling but no other context is given. However, it could be slightly clearer about the tool's exact role in the broader authentication flow, but overall it's effective.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it's for IDE agents like Cursor, and contrasts with the recommended permanent config-based approach vs. a session-only token paste. It also provides a conditional usage pattern depending on whether the user has a token or not. This goes beyond basic guidance and explains the alternative approaches and when to use each, effectively guiding the agent on how to interact with the user and the system.

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 false, so safety is clear. The description adds conditional response behavior involving pending[] and connect_url, which provides useful context 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail. No filler or 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core behavior well. It could slightly expand on what 'URLs' refers to, but for a simple status tool this is adequate and complete enough.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the conditional behavior described 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 clearly states the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs', with a specific scope and conditional outcomes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status 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 explains when to expect different outputs: authenticated:true when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a status-checking 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?

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that data comes from official sources, is not confidential, and that usage incurs prepaid credit costs, but it does not elaborate on error handling or consequences of insufficient credits.

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 few sentences but repeats the idea of consulting official sources and includes non-essential legal disclaimers. It could be more concise by focusing on the core functionality.

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 lack of parameter explanations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a user to understand how to use the tool. Missing details on input semantics, output format, and constraints make it incomplete.

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?

None of the six parameters (escala, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, codigo_parcela) are described. The schema provides only names and types, and the description offers no explanation of their meaning or purpose.

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 it queries information from official Brazilian sources, but it does not clearly specify that it retrieves INCRA SIGEF plant data specifically. The mention of payment and LGPD distracts from the core purpose, leaving the primary function somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, scenarios, or prerequisites for invoking the 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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that invoke works even if the MCP is not installed, runs one-off without bloating the tool list, and may return connect or checkout links for auth/payment. It also notes that writes require workspace owner/admin. While the annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent, the description provides the crucial detail about one-off execution and auth/payment flows, making it highly transparent. Minor gap: it doesn't mention the return format or potential side effects of invoke beyond one-off.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically through actions, key behaviors, and additional features. It is long but every sentence adds value (e.g., the flow explanation, invoke vs install distinction, and prompt library explanation). However, it could be slightly more concise by grouping related actions and reducing redundancy (e.g., mentions of auth/wallet twice).

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 23 parameters, no output schema, and no required params, the description provides enough context to use the tool effectively for common cases. It covers the main workflow, important edge cases (auth/payment links), permission requirements, and the distinction between MCPs and prompt library. It is comprehensive given the complexity, leaving few questions about how to start.

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 description explains the purpose of key parameters like `action`, `mcp_id`, `tool_id`, `arguments`, `prompt_*` fields, and `cancel_reason`, but not all 23 are covered (e.g., `conversation`, `immediate`, `tier_slug`). Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the core parameters and the action enum's behavior, though it could be more exhaustive for completeness.

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 specifies the tool as the marketplace for MCPs, covering discovery, description, and invocation, and distinguishes it from siblings like `report_bug` and `toolkit_info`. It explicitly lists the core actions and the flow (search → describe → invoke), making its primary purpose 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 provides explicit usage guidance, including when to use invoke versus install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), when to use other actions (list_tools, subscribe/cancel), and clarifies the prompt library functions. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that request_mcp is for building new MCPs, and report_bug is for feedback.

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 state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive write operation. The description adds context about including conversation for reproduction, but it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., whether a ticket is created). With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a critical usage tip. There is no redundant wording or filler, and every word adds 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, making it relatively simple. However, the description omits important behavioral details (e.g., expected response, side effects) and under-explains the parameters. Given the low schema coverage and no output schema, the description does not fully equip the agent to use the tool correctly, especially regarding the required 'message' parameter.

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 must compensate. It only mentions 'conversation array', but the schema defines three parameters: context, message, and conversation. The description does not explain 'message' (the required field) or 'context', and it fails to clarify that conversation is a serialized string despite being called an 'array'. This leaves the agent under-informed about two of 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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It specifies the action (report/send) and the object (bug/missing feature/feedback), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'show_version' which serve different functions.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This clarifies when to use the tool (when troubleshooting an issue) and how to prepare input. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though siblings are distinct enough that the context 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe the output format or any potential side effects, but with these annotations, the bar is lower and the description meets it.

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 directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

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, clear annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety. It could mention the output format, but for a version-check tool, this is not critical.

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). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's action.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' or 'connect', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 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 implies when to use it (when you need version information), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the tool's simplicity and zero parameters, this is adequate but not 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 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 contradictions.

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 key output components. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns. A minor gap is that it doesn't mention the format or structure of the returned data, but for a state-reporting tool with no inputs, this is acceptable.

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). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output 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 the tool's purpose: it returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 read-only informational tool to be used when checking the toolkit's current state. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools are action-oriented, the context is clear enough. A brief note on when to use it (e.g., before connecting or troubleshooting) would improve it.

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