Microvix

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the link generation and session-only vs. permanent connection, without contradicting annotations. It does not detail error handling or output, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the target audience and purpose. It efficiently covers two usage modes without unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 lacking output schema, the description covers essential behavior for a simple authentication tool: how to obtain a token, two usage paths, and the difference between permanent and session login. It could mention error cases, but the core usage is well-specified.

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 that the 'token' parameter is optional: passing it sets a session token, omitting it returns a login link. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's empty description.

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 it authenticates IDE agents (Cursor, etc.), explaining two distinct methods: permanent via config header or session via token argument. It is a specific verb-resource combination that stands out from sibling tools like 'connect' or '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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each method: 'Best: add it to this server's config... Or paste it here for a session-only login.' It also explains calling with no args to get the link, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, though no alternative is needed.

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 explaining the return structure (authenticated:true with empty pending[] or connect_url) and the conditions for each state. 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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences without wasted words. Every sentence provides essential behavioral information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and two return scenarios. Minor gap: could mention that it is a read-only check, but annotations already cover that.

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 is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Returns connection status and URLs' and explains the different return states (all connected vs missing credentials). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate'.

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 when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or fallback 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description reveals that invoke works even when an MCP isn't installed, runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, and returns connect/checkout links when auth or payment is needed. It also discloses that writes require workspace owner/admin, adding critical permission context annotations don't provide.

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 every sentence adds value, covering the core flow, invoke semantics, install implications, permissions, and the prompt library. It lacks section breaks or bullet formatting, making it a wall of text, but remains readable and well-organized.

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 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the primary user journeys (discover, describe, invoke, install) and edge cases (auth, payment retry, permissions). It touches on report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library functions, though a few secondary actions like resume and cancel get no 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains core parameters like action (search/describe/invoke/install), tool_id, mcp_id, and arguments as part of the workflow. However, many parameters such as immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and prompt_category are only listed in the schema without any description-level explanation, so the description only 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 states the tool is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and immediately explains the core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes its role as both catalog and execution layer, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that are specific microvix operations or support utilities.

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 guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit'. It also clarifies when to use list_tools, request_mcp, and report_bug, providing clear decision context 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that filtering is possible on specific fields, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or output format. The description adds minimal value beyond what annotations already 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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the resource and filter options efficiently. It is front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating resource identification from filtering instructions).

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns, any ordering, default behaviors, or required permissions. The lack of a return value description and minimal parameter detail leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It mentions data_inicial/fim, doc_cliente, and cnpj_emp as filter fields but omits the 'account' parameter. No details are provided on expected formats, units, or relationships between parameters, leaving schema interpretation ambiguous.

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 deals with 'Cadastro de clientes e fornecedores' (customer and supplier registry), which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool lists/retrieves records or creates/updates them, though the annotations suggest read-only. It distinguishes from siblings like microvix_lojas or microvix_produtos by specifying the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions filtering capabilities without explaining context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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?

Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the output (CNPJs) and the recommended workflow step. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second provides actionable usage advice. No 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 simple list tool with good annotations, the description covers the main purpose and usage intent. However, missing parameter details and output schema reduce completeness slightly.

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 2 parameters (grupo, account) with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain or add meaning to these parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The agent is left guessing what values to provide.

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 CNPJs of stores in a group (LinxGrupoLojas) with a specific use case hint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like microvix_lojas by focusing on group-level CNPJ 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use pra descobrir os cnpj_emp antes de iterar' (use to discover cnpj_emp before iterating). No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to understand when to invoke.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that it returns id and label, providing further clarity on behavior. 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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant words. It is concise but could be more 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 list tool with an optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the output fields but omits parameter usage. This is adequate but leaves a 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 sole parameter 'account' is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify its purpose (e.g., filtering), but it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists Microvix portals connected to the install, with id and label. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like microvix_clientes_fornec or microvix_produtos.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as microvix_clientes_fornec or other listing tools. It simply states what it does.

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 the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it returns CNPJ, address, and tax regime, which is useful but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limits, 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key data fields.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is incomplete: it does not explain parameter semantics, output format, or how the data is scoped. For a tool with two uncommented parameters, 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention parameters. The two params (account, cnpj_emp) lack any explanation of their purpose or usage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 resource (lojas/empresas) and lists specific data fields (CNPJ, endereço, regime tributário), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the domain (LinxLojas). However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 over siblings. The description only states what data it provides, without context about prerequisites, filtering, or alternatives such as microvix_grupo_lojas or microvix_clientes_fornec.

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, so safety is clear. The description adds context about the data content (taxes, payment methods) but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides extra behavioral value.

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 entity name and key fields, followed by filter instructions. No wasted words; efficient for an agent to parse.

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 4 params, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides a high-level overview of returned data (transactions, NF key, taxes, payment methods) and filters. However, it lacks details on output structure, required parameters, or default behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 4 parameters (account, cnpj_emp, data_fim, data_inicial) with 0% description coverage. The description explains 'Filtre por data_inicial/fim e cnpj_emp', covering three parameters' purpose but omitting 'account'. This adds moderate meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool covers sales/fiscal movements (LinxMovimento) with specifics: transações, chave da NF, impostos, formas de pagamento. It distinguishes from siblings like microvix_pedidos_venda and microvix_produtos by naming the entity and scope.

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 mentions filtering by data_inicial/fim and cnpj_emp, implying when to use it (for fiscal data). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The guidance is implicit.

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, making the tool's safety profile clear. The description adds filter constraints but lacks details on default behavior with no filters, pagination, or limits. It does not contradict 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, concise sentence that front-loads the resource name and key filters. Every word adds value 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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description omits important details like default behavior when no filters are provided, response structure, and pagination. It is too brief for an agent to fully understand all operational aspects.

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 compensates by naming 4 of 5 parameters (cnpj_emp, data_fim, doc_cliente, data_inicial) but misses 'account'. It does not explain data formats or allowed values, so meaning is basic but helpful.

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 resource 'Pedidos de venda' (sales orders) and implies a listing/filtering action with 'Filtre por' (filter by). It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other entities like clients, products, 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 specifies filter criteria but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use. Usage is implied but not detailed.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds filter details (date window, CNPJ) but omits behavior like pagination, response size, or whether it returns partial data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with key information front-loaded. Efficient, but could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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 description does not explain return values, row limits, or what the response contains. For a 6-parameter tool with no required fields, this is insufficient.

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% description coverage. Description explains cnpj_emp and date filters, but not account, referencia, or cod_produto. It lists product fields (nome, NCM, CEST) that are not parameters, which may confuse.

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?

Description specifies the tool is for product registration (Cadastro de produtos) listing fields and filters. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like microvix_produtos_detalhes or microvix_produtos_inventario which have similar names.

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. Sibling tools exist (e.g., detalhes, inventario) but the description provides no context for selection.

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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds no behavioral traits beyond listing available fields; no disclosure of pagination, rate limits, or authorization needs. Adequate but not enhanced.

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 purpose and key fields. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no required params, the description covers main purpose and two filters but omits details on other parameters and response structure. Annotations provide safety context, but operational completeness is moderate.

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%, yet description only explains two of six parameters (data_mov_ini/fim, cnpj_emp). Parameters like account, referencia, cod_produto are left undocumented. Description provides partial compensation but is insufficient for full understanding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Detalhe de produto por loja' and lists key fields (barcode, quantity, prices). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like microvix_produtos or microvix_produtos_inventario, which may have overlapping 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?

Mentions filters (data_mov_ini/fim, cnpj_emp) implying use case for filtered product detail, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. No guidance on preferring this over 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no extra behavioral traits (e.g., data limits, filtering behavior). It does not contradict 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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundancy, but could be more structured with parameter listing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and 3 params, the description lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or data interpretation. Incomplete for confident use.

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. It mentions data_inventario and cnpj_emp but omits the 'account' parameter. It adds 'by barcode' hint but no barcode param, causing confusion.

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's purpose as inventory/stock balance by barcode and specifies the parameters to provide (data_inventario and cnpj_emp). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on inventory specifically, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or '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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like microvix_produtos or microvix_produtos_detalhes. The description only states required parameters but no context for selection.

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, so the description needs only to add context beyond that. It adds the internal name 'LinxVendedores' but does not disclose behavior like result format, pagination, or rate limits. It is adequate but not informative.

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 very brief (two sentences) with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then lists filters. However, given the tool's complexity (5 parameters), it could be slightly more structured without being verbose. Still, every sentence serves a 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no required parameters. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, any ordering, limits, or common usage patterns. For a read-only listing tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 must compensate. It lists three of five parameters (data_upd_inicial/fim, cod_vendedor, cnpj_emp) and says to use them as filters, but does not explain their formats, allowed values, or semantics. This partially fills the gap but leaves ambiguity for undocumented parameters like 'account'.

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 'Cadastro de vendedores (LinxVendedores)' indicates the tool relates to vendors and provides the internal system name, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list', 'query'), making the action ambiguous. The mention of filters helps, but the purpose is not fully explicit.

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 mentions filter parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., microvix_clientes_fornec for clients). There is no scenario, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings, leaving the agent without decision support.

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 and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. Description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., side effects, authentication, rate limits) beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 efficient sentences front-load purpose and a key usage hint, no extraneous content.

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?

Tool is simple but lacks output schema and parameter descriptions. Description covers core purpose and one parameter, but is adequate for a feedback tool given idempotentHint.

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% description coverage. Description clarifies the 'conversation' parameter meaning but leaves 'context' undocumented, so only partial value added.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Report' and resource 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback', distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated Microvix 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?

Explicitly advises including conversation array for reproduction, giving clear context. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned, but sibling set doesn't overlap.

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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the specific output details (platform and adapter versions) beyond the annotations, which is useful but not extensive. 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 sentence with no wasted words, perfectly front-loaded and 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 simple info tool with no output schema and minimal complexity, the description fully explains what the tool does without needing additional 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, so the schema covers everything. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Score 4 as baseline for no 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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions', specifying the verb 'show' and the exact resource (version info). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or microvix tools, which have different 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?

The purpose is self-evident for a version-checking tool; no explicit guidance on when to use is needed, but no alternatives are mentioned. Score 4 for clear but lacking exclusions.

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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that it returns not just connection status but also account associations and catalog tool counts, which is behavior not visible in annotations or schema.

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 action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key content groups. No filler or redundant wording.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully enumerates what the agent can expect to receive. It is complete for a simple status tool, covering all relevant aspects (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts) without needing additional 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the description adequately explains the operation without needing to reference 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates its contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version 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 clearly conveys that this is the tool for inspecting toolkit state, implying use when you need an overview of MCP connections and accounts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the uniqueness of the described output makes the use case obvious.

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