JUCESP: REDESIM, Acompanhamento de Protocolo

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

The description reveals practical behavior beyond annotations: token format ('<jwt>'), session-only versus persistent config-based auth, and the no-arguments behavior of returning the login link. It states that config-header auth is 'permanent, non-expiring', which is useful context not derivable from idempotentHint or readOnlyHint.

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 tool's purpose before providing actionable details. It contains several semicolon-connected clauses, making it slightly dense but every part adds usable 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 there is no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to both select this tool and use each invocation mode. It covers persistent, session, and no-argument cases. It does not explicitly state return values in detail, but 'get the link' is enough for this simple auth flow.

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 provides only a bare optional 'token' string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the token is pasted after user login, is expected to be a JWT, and that omitting it returns the login link. This fully resolves the meaning and behavior of the only parameter.

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 this as an authentication tool: users log in through the browser and supply an access token as a JWT, or retrieve a login link with no arguments. It is specific about the resource (MCP.AI server for IDE agents) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like '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?

It provides explicit onboarding guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent access, 'Or paste it here for a session-only login', and 'or with no args to get the link'. It clearly tells an agent how to invoke different modes, though it does not name alternative tools to use instead.

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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the two possible response shapes: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url with per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This clarifies the tool's output logic 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently adds the key behavioral distinctions. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without waste 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?

For a simple parameterless tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers both primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and explains what the response includes. There are no gaps in understanding when or how to invoke the 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% since there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output behavior rather than parameter explanation.

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, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes between the fully-connected state and the missing-credentials state, making it unambiguous. This differentiates it from siblings like 'authenticate', which initiates an action rather than reporting status.

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 it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. It describes behavioral outcomes based on connection state, but does not include direct guidance on when to call it or what to do after seeing the results. The context is somewhat evident but not 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context about billing, public-source data, and LGPD responsibility. However, the claim 'sem credenciais' is potentially misleading given the schema includes login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, and pkcs12_pass, so the description is not fully transparent about the role of these parameters.

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 composed of three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, while the remaining sentences cover pricing, data source, and compliance without excessive padding 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what the consultation returns or what 'andamento' includes, but it does not. It also fails to explain four optional parameters, leaving a significant gap for a tool with five parameters and no structured output information.

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, but only 'protocolo' is inferable from the text as a REDESIM protocol identifier. The optional credential-related parameters (login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass) are entirely unexplained, and the statement 'sem credenciais' adds confusion rather than resolving their 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Acompanha o andamento de um protocolo REDESIM na JUCESP' and clarifies the covered business types (abertura, alteração ou baixa de empresa). This clearly differentiates the tool from the general sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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?

It provides clear contextual guidance: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, uses prepaid credit, and returns the same non-confidential data available to Brazilian citizens. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the given sibling set.

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 only provide generic flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It adds rich behavior: invoke runs one-off 'without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list', returns a connect link if credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link on empty wallet, and states writes require workspace owner/admin. This substantially exceeds what annotations disclose, with no contradiction.

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?

At roughly 350 words in a single wall-of-text paragraph, it is dense but genuinely valuable for a 14-action tool. It uses inline markers like 'Core flow:', 'KEY:', and 'Search/describe flag' to aid scanning, but a bulleted or sectioned structure would dramatically improve navigability for an agent parsing 14 distinct actions.

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 highly complex tool (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers the main behavioral surface: the orchestration flow, one-off vs permanent semantics, auth/payment link returns, workspace permissions, and the prompt library sub-feature. Minor gaps remain: no error-handling guidance, no pagination behavior, and no explicit mention of what list_tools returns — but it is strong overall.

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% with 23 parameters, so the description must compensate fully. It maps roughly half: action (flow), query (search), message (capability requests), mcp_id (describe/install), tool_id (invoke), arguments, prompt_slug/prompt_vars (prompt library), tier_slug (subscribe). But limit, immediate, conversation, request_name, cancel_comment, report_context, prompt_targets, prompt_category, request_details, prompt_description, and prompt_title are documented nowhere.

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 purpose: the official in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool AND the way to run them, with explicit capability examples ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate/connect and report_bug by owning the search→describe→invoke flow and the prompt library.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'. It also clarifies the retry-after-checkout flow and that limit applies to search/publish.

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 idempotency and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the conversation details are used for reproduction, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., data delivery method, whether a response is expected) or any other operational nuances. 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and then give one necessary usage note. No redundant language or repetition of schema-field names.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is minimally adequate. It says what the report is and how to improve reproducibility, but omits guidance for the 'context' parameter and does not describe what happens after submission or any possible errors.

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 all parameters. It partially explains 'message' by implication (bug/feedback text) and 'conversation' by telling users to include recent messages, but it leaves 'context' completely undefined and does not specify formats or examples for conversation beyond 'array'.

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 exact purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is specific and distinct from all sibling tools, which cover unrelated actions like authenticate, connect, and 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?

It provides clear user-facing context for when to use the tool (bug, missing feature, feedback) and even gives a usage hint about including the conversation array. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though none of the siblings compete.

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 behavior; the description adds the word 'current' implying real-time data, slightly enhancing transparency. However, it does not mention whether a network call is made or if it relies on cached data. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence of 10 words. No filler, no redundancy, directly front-loaded with the verb. 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?

For a parameterless, side-effect-free query tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. No output schema is necessary, and annotations handle safety. Nothing is missing.

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, there is nothing to explain. Per rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary 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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb ('Show') and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on authentication, connections, protocol consultation, marketplace, or 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?

Usage is immediately clear for a version-check utility; when you need version info, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention any exclusions or alternatives, though none are necessary given its self-contained nature.

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 it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context about what information it returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, and the combination of annotations and description provides a clear behavioral picture.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned data. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns crossing all relevant aspects. It covers the essential information an agent needs to decide when to invoke it.

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, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true). The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none, and it accurately describes the tool's output.

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') and identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerations of what it includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like show_version and jucesp_redesim_protocolo_consultar, which serve other purposes.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose strongly implies it's the go-to for a high-level overview of the toolkit's configuration. It could benefit from a note that it doesn't perform actions or authenticate, but given the sibling list and the clear scope, the context is adequate.

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