INCRA SIGEF: Requerimentos

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the no-arg behavior returns a login link, the token call performs session-only login, and config-based auth gives a non-expiring connection. It does not cover response format on a token call, but the key behavioral differences are disclosed.

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 and front-loaded with the login intent. It includes setup and session instructions in a dense but useful format. The long sentences are slightly heavy, but every piece of information 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, it covers the core workflow well: how to invoke, what value to pass, and what the no-arg call returns. It could be slightly richer about success/failure responses, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

There is one optional token parameter, and the description gives explicit meaning: after the user pastes the JWT, call with `{ token: "<jwt>" }`, while calling with no args is also acceptable. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents: log in, copy the access token, then provide a session token or get a link. It is specific about the action and resource and distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on login/authentication rather than connecting, marketplace, or version 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?

It explicitly says when to call the tool with no args to obtain the link, and when to call it with a token after the user pastes one. It also gives an alternative setup path with a permanent Authorization Bearer header, which is strong usage guidance for the 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the two possible return states (authenticated vs. missing credentials) and the presence of connect_url and per-install URLs, which goes 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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently explains the tool's behavior without 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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the two possible outcomes and the URLs returned, which is sufficient for a status-checking tool. It could mention the exact format of URLs, but that is minor.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description explains the output semantics, which is the main value since there are no parameters to document. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info. It specifies the output conditions (authenticated:true when all providers connected, connect_url when credentials missing), which is specific and informative.

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 checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate or toolkit_info. It provides context on what the tool returns but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds payment model, absence of platform credentials, LGPD/controller responsibility, and the fact that data is the same non-confidential data available to citizens. This is valuable behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably compact. It repeats 'official source' twice, but each sentence contributes distinct context: purpose, payment/hosting, and LGPD responsibility.

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 9 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It provides high-level purpose and compliance context but omits operational details like query filters, pagination, and credential handling.

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 explain any of the 9 string parameters. The only hint is that login_cpf/login_senha are not platform credentials, but there is no guidance on cpf, cnpj, protocolo, codigo_imovel, pagina, or pkcs12 fields.

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 a specific query action: 'Requerimentos, consulta em fonte oficial' and identifies the resource as INCRA SIGEF requerimentos. It also clarifies that it queries information from official Brazilian sources, distinguishing it from generic tools and 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 description implies the tool is for querying official public data and notes it is a paid, prepaid-credit consultation with no platform credentials. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives or 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.

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

It discloses behavior well beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, missing credentials return a connect link, empty wallet returns a checkout/top-up link, writes require workspace owner/admin, and prompt links open without login. These are meaningful side-effect and requirement details that annotations do not 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core flow and includes only relevant behavioral facts. It could be improved with bullet points or separation of the prompt-library section, but every sentence adds information and supports correct selection/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?

Given a complex 14-action tool, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the main flows, permission requirements, and auth/payment redirects. However, it omits the 'resume' action entirely and does not explain several action-specific parameters, leaving notable gaps for full contextual completeness.

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 adds meaning for the core parameters via the flow (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) and explains prompt-related actions. However, with 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, many parameters remain unexplained (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, request_details, conversation, etc.), leaving the agent to infer their meanings.

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 the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace: a catalog of every MCP/tool and a way to run them, with a concrete core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info by also covering the prompt library and installation/billing 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 gives explicit internal guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but it does clarify when to use each marketplace action.

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 idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the requirement to include the conversation array, but does not mention side effects, potential errors, or permissions. Given annotations exist, the description provides minimal additional transparency.

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: two sentences clearly state the purpose and an important usage detail. No superfluous words 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?

For a bug reporting tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what to do and what to include. It does not describe output (no output schema), but that is acceptable. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, which is a minor 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 schema has three parameters (context, message, conversation), but the description only explains 'conversation' ('Include the conversation array...'). It does not explain what 'context' or 'message' mean, despite 'message' being required. This low coverage requires more explanation from the description, which is lacking.

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 also gives a specific instruction on including the conversation array, making it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 (to report bugs/feedback) and provides an instruction on what to include. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of being fully 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe, and the description is consistent with those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's basic purpose, such as output format or whether it requires an active connection.

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 is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it an excellent example of minimal but effective structure.

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 very low complexity, zero parameters, and rich safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It clearly identifies what information the tool returns (MCP platform and adapter versions) without requiring additional detail.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It fully states what the tool does and is distinct from the sibling tools, which are about authentication, connection, marketplace, and bug reporting.

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 when version information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like toolkit_info. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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 covered. The description adds valuable context about the return payload (MCP statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's informational scope.

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 that immediately states the action ('Returns') followed by a concise list of what is included. Every word earns its place with 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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect without needing additional format details.

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 has 100% coverage (empty object). Per rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This fully distinguishes it from siblings 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 usage as a diagnostic/inspection tool by listing what it returns, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor names alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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