Kiwify

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: calling with no args returns a browser link, and passing token sets session. Consistent with idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Does not mention side effects like overwriting existing tokens.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and structure, but the second sentence is lengthy. Generally concise with no wasted words, though slightly verbose.

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?

Adequately covers the tool's functionality given no output schema and single parameter. Explains both invocation methods (with/without token) and the permanent config option. Lacks details on return type of the link.

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?

Input schema has one undocumented optional 'token' parameter (0% coverage). Description compensates well, explaining it is a JWT used for session login and providing usage instructions. Could specify format more precisely.

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 defines the tool's purpose as authentication setup, explaining two login modes (permanent via config header or session via token). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on token acquisition rather than connection establishment.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: permanent via config header, session via token parameter, and when to call with no args to get a browser login link. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among siblings.

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. The description adds value by detailing the two possible return state (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), providing behavioral 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence 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?

No output schema, but the description covers the return values in both cases (all connected vs missing credentials). It explains the pending array and URLs, making the tool's output well-understood.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description does not need to add parameter information, and with 0 parameters, baseline is 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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool which initiates authentication. It specifies verb 'returns' and resource 'connection status and URLs'.

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 and when to expect different return values. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the context of authentication states provides implicit guidance. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' are alternative but not mentioned.

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 operation's safety is clear. The description adds 'Lista' (list) which aligns, but does not provide additional behavioral 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant information. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no return value description, the description is incomplete. The 'account' parameter is undocumented, and the tool's output (presumably a list of affiliates) is not described, leaving the agent without full context.

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 description must compensate. It names three parameters (status, page_size, page) but omits 'account', and provides no semantics or constraints for any parameter. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb 'Lista' (list) and resource 'afiliados do creator na Kiwify' (affiliates of the creator on Kiwify), distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover other entities like products, sales, subscriptions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description only mentions optional filters, which is not enough for usage decisions.

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, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the scope 'vinculadas a este install', which is 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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately conveys the key information. No wasted words.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description gives a reasonable overview of the output. However, it is incomplete due to missing parameter explanation and lack of detail about the 'install' context.

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 fails to explain the 'account' parameter. The description only lists fields in the output, leaving the parameter's purpose undefined.

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 verb 'Lista' and resource 'contas Kiwify (creators) vinculadas a este install', and specifies the returned fields (id, label, apelido). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like kiwify_affiliates or kiwify_products.

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 vs alternatives. The description does not include when-not or explicit context for selection among the sibling tools.

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 it's a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds optional filter info but lacks behavioral details like rate limits, pagination behavior, or authentication needs.

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 concise sentence with no redundant content. However, it is slightly incomplete by not covering the account parameter, which is a minor clarity issue.

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 list tool, the description is minimal. It lacks explanation of the output, pagination behavior, or any context beyond optional filters. Given no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 mentions two of three parameters (page_size, page) as optional filters but omits the 'account' parameter, providing incomplete guidance. Schema has no descriptions, so the description partially compensates.

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 lists products from the creator on Kiwify with optional filters, matching the name and distinguishing it from siblings like kiwify_affiliates or kiwify_sales_list.

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 listing products with optional filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating it returns raw Kiwify data and supports batched execution via sale_ids/product_ids. This extra context about behavior and batch capability enhances transparency 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 relatively concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a bullet-like structure for actions. It includes a flattening note and bulk support without excessive verbosity. Slight redundancy from listing both actions when the tool is focused on get.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers many parameters and actions but omits details like required parameters per action (e.g., sale_id likely required for get), the 'account' parameter explanation, and any description of return value fields. This leaves gaps for an agent to fill.

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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining start_date/end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD), listing filters for list, and specifying sale_id for get. It also introduces sale_ids and product_ids for batch. However, the 'account' parameter is unmentioned, missing some meaning.

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 'Leitura de vendas na Kiwify' and lists both 'list' and 'get' actions, but the tool name is 'kiwify_sales_get' and there is a sibling 'kiwify_sales_list'. This conflates the two actions without clarifying the tool's primary role, leading to ambiguity about when to use this tool vs. the list-only sibling.

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 for using each action (e.g., get requires sale_id, list has filters) and mentions bulk support, but it does not explain when to use 'kiwify_sales_get' instead of the similar sibling 'kiwify_sales_list'. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about returning raw Kiwify data, bulk execution support via sale_ids/product_ids, and date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which are not in 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 moderately sized but mixes Portuguese and English, has a bullet-like list for actions, and an additional note on bulk support. It could be streamlined into a single, clear sentence with less 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?

The description lacks explanation of return values (only says 'raw data'), does not cover all 10 parameters (account missing), and does not explain how bulk execution works in detail. Given no output schema, the description should provide more on the response format or pagination.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It defines filters (start_date, end_date, product_id, status, page_size, page) and bulk parameters (sale_ids, product_ids) but omits 'account' and does not explain the meaning or format of all parameters. The date format is specified, which adds value.

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 is for listing sales on Kiwify, specifies the 'list' action with filters, and explicitly distinguishes it from the 'get' action via mention of kiwify_sales_get sibling. The tool name itself reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly contrasts 'list' with 'get' and notes that 'get' requires a sale_id, helping the agent decide. It lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool in favor of other list siblings (e.g., subscriptions), but the differentiation from the direct sibling 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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it performs reading and supports bulk actions, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, authentication requirements, or data freshness.

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 relatively short but mixes languages (Portuguese and English) and formats (bullet, brackets). It could be more streamlined and better structured to separate actions clearly.

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 and no description of return values. The tool has 8 parameters and two actions, but the description does not cover all aspects (e.g., no explanation of response format). The sibling duplication is not resolved.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps most parameters (product_id, status, page_size, page, subscription_id, subscription_ids, product_ids) to specific actions, but misses the 'account' parameter. Overall adds moderate value.

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 'Leitura de assinaturas na Kiwify' clearly indicating reading subscriptions. It distinguishes between listing with filters and getting a single subscription by ID, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'kiwify_subscriptions_list' which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 some guidance on when to use list (with filters) vs get (requires subscription_id) and mentions bulk support. However, it fails to address when to use this tool versus the sibling 'kiwify_subscriptions_list' 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool supports batched execution (accepting arrays of IDs) and mentions the flattened action as list, providing behavioral 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 reasonably short but includes both list and get actions, which may cause confusion since the tool is for listing. The structure is acceptable but could be more streamlined by focusing solely on the list action and removing the get reference or clarifying its absence.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination behavior, the meaning of the 'account' parameter, or what the response structure looks like. The bulk support mention is helpful but lacks details on how batching works.

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 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining each parameter. It only mentions product_id, status, page_size, page, subscription_id, subscription_ids, and product_ids, but omits 'account' and does not fully clarify the role of subscription_id (likely for bulk). The explanation is insufficient for an agent to correctly use all 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 specifies 'Leitura de assinaturas na Kiwify' and distinguishes between list and get actions. The tool name ends with '_list' and the flattened action is 'list', making it clear that this tool is for listing subscriptions. The sibling tool 'kiwify_subscriptions_get' provides differentiation for single subscription retrieval.

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 outlines the list action with filters and mentions that get requires a subscription_id. It also indicates bulk support via subscription_ids and product_ids. This gives context on when to use this tool versus the sibling get tool, though it could be more explicit about preferring list for multiple subscriptions.

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 (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, but the cancellation action itself is a mutation. The description adds that cancellation applies to a single subscription or multiple via bulk, but lacks details on reversibility or 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 relatively concise but includes redundant phrases like 'Flattened action: cancel' and 'Mutações em assinaturas Kiwify.' It conveys key info but could be more efficiently structured.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description covers the main action and bulk support but omits explanation for the 'account' parameter and does not mention return values or 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?

The description only explains 'subscription_id' and 'subscription_ids' (bulk), but fails to describe the 'account' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not fully.

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 cancels a Kiwify subscription, using the verb 'cancela' and specifying the parameter 'subscription_id'. It distinguishes from sibling read tools (get/list) by implying a write operation.

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 canceling subscriptions and mentions bulk support via 'subscription_ids', but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to 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 convey readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: invoke returns connect/checkout links for missing credentials or payment, install is permanent, uninstall removes. It does not explicitly warn about destructive consequences of uninstall/cancel, but the owner/admin requirement implies caution. Overall, it enriches transparency 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 long but structured: starts with overall purpose, then the core flow, then specific tool behaviors. While every sentence adds information, it could be more concise by grouping related details. The front-loading is good, but the density may overwhelm the agent.

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 tool with 13 parameters and 10 actions, the description covers the primary use cases (search/describe/invoke) and edge cases (credentials, payment). However, it lacks detail on actions like 'list_tools' (no explanation of what it returns) and 'report_bug' (no input guidance). The absence of an output schema is not compensated by description of return values. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.

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 explains the 'action' enum and the roles of 'query', 'mcp_id', 'tool_id', and 'arguments' within the core flow. However, parameters like 'limit', 'immediate', 'tier_slug', 'conversation', 'request_name', 'report_context', 'request_details' are not described at all. The description adds value for the most critical parameters but leaves many undocumented.

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 is the official marketplace catalog and execution system. It specifies the verb 'search', 'describe', 'invoke', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect' by detailing the core discovery flow. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'use THIS tool FIRST, before any external/generic registry'. It explains the core flow (search→describe→invoke) and contrasts invoke vs install for one-off vs permanent use. It also notes access restrictions ('writes require workspace owner/admin') and error handling for credentials or wallet.

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 provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the need to include conversation data for reproduction, but does not clarify if the report creates a ticket, whether it's idempotent (annotation may be misleading), or any error conditions. Minimal behavioral context 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, efficient and front-loaded. It communicates the core action and a key usage hint without extra words. Could be slightly more structured to list parameters.

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 and no description of what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket created, confirmation). Tool is simple but the return behavior is completely unspecified. For a bug report tool, users need to know if the report was received.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'conversation array' for reproduction, but the schema defines conversation as a string, which could cause confusion. No description for 'message' (required) or 'context'. Adds some meaning but not 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?

The description uses the verb 'Report' and specifies the resource as 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback', making the purpose clear. It covers multiple related actions but remains distinct from sibling tools which are about authentication, marketplace, etc.

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 advises to include the conversation array for reproduction, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools don't offer similar functionality, so lack of exclusion criteria is acceptable but no usage context is given.

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 no new behavioral traits beyond confirming it shows versions. It does not contradict annotations but also does not provide additional context like auth requirements or rate limits.

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, complete sentence with no unnecessary information. Every word is functional, achieving maximum conciseness.

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, read-only tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose. The only minor gap is the lack of output format details, but without an output schema, 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 schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly provides no parameter-specific detail as none exist. This meets the baseline of 4 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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, none of which seem to provide version 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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, the simplicity of the tool and its read-only nature make its usage obvious. Since no sibling tools serve the same purpose, the context implies appropriate usage.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific return details (MCPs, connection status, catalog counts) confirming it is a safe, read-only query.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description lists the key return fields (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog counts). It is fairly complete for a state query tool, though it might omit potential fields like error status or metadata.

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%. The description adds no parameter details since there are none. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, and how many catalog tools each exposes.' It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes from sibling tools which are about authentication, connection, or specific domain operations.

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 retrieving toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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