Nuvemshop

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: config header yields a permanent connection, while passing a token yields a session-only login, and no args returns a link. It does not fully spell out side effects or success/failure return values, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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

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

The description is dense and front-loaded, with no fluff, but the long single sentence with parenthetical clauses and multiple alternatives could be structured into clearer separate instructions. Still, every part adds necessary 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?

For a one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, it covers the no-arg return (the link), the token-paste path, and the persistent-config alternative. It doesn't state the response on a token success/failure, but the invocation guidance is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden for the optional `token` parameter. It explains that token is a JWT/access token pasted by the user and how to pass it, compensating well for the bare 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 identifies the tool as MCP.AI authentication for IDE agents, with a concrete browser-login + access-token flow and two invocation paths (no args for a link, token for login). This specific verb+resource is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the unrelated calculo_* sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly differentiates the persistent config-header approach ('best... permanent, non-expiring') from the session-only paste/login path, and states exactly when to call with no args versus with { token }. This gives the agent clear selection criteria for both setup and invocation.

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 establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by specifying the two main response states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This helps an agent predict what to expect.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds only the essential conditional details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no waste.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what information will be returned, what the success condition looks like, and what happens when credentials are missing. The low complexity means no additional guidance is required.

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 description does not need to explain any input semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden at all.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes connect from its sibling authenticate by framing it as a status/read operation rather than an action, and the conditional output descriptions reinforce this.

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 makes clear that this is the tool to call when checking connection state or getting URLs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like authenticate, but the context strongly implies connect is for status checking rather than initiating authentication, so usage is clear without being fully explicit.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: invoke runs an MCP even when it is not installed, does a one-off run without adding the MCP to the toolkit, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when payment is needed, and requires workspace owner/admin for write operations. The description enriches the annotations and does not contradict them.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with identity and the core flow, and nearly every sentence carries useful guidance. However, it is one dense, wall-of-text paragraph with mixed language ("pontualmente") and heavy inline emphasis, which makes the many action alternatives hard to scan and 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?

For a complex 23-parameter, 14-action facade with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the core flow, one-off invoke semantics, auth/credential/payment behavior, permission requirements, installed flags, the prompt library, and most action outcomes. The main gaps are the resume action and return-shape details for a few actions, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 does a lot of compensating work: it maps action values such as search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, publish_prompt, and explains tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related intent. However, several parameters and enum actions remain unexplained, including resume, limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, conversation, request_name, and request_details, leaving agents under-specified for those paths.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace: the in-platform catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It states the core discovery→describe→invoke flow, distinguishes the prompt-library subdomain from the MCP flow, and makes it clear this is a marketplace orchestrator rather than one of the sibling calculator/authenticate tools.

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 when-to-use guidance: use install only to make an MCP permanent, prefer invoke for one-off use, use list_tools to see what is callable now, use subscribe/cancel for billing, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains what to do when invoke returns a connect link or checkout link, including retry behavior.

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, indicating a safe read operation. The description simply restates 'Lista' (list), adding no further behavioral context such as rate limits, token requirements, or pagination behavior. It neither contradicts nor enriches 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 with a parenthetical for parameters, achieving conciseness with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, but could benefit from adding more detail without becoming 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of categories with pagination). It does not mention return format, error handling, or the fact that category listing may be paginated, leaving an agent with incomplete 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists three parameter names (page, per_page, parent) but omits 'account' and provides no explanation of their semantics or usage. This partial listing adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 explicitly states 'Lista categorias da loja Nuvemshop', which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (categories). The tool name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_products_list, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing categories but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nuvemshop_products_list) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or 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 provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe reads. The description adds little beyond mentioning optional params; it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format.

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 core purpose. It has no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded for completeness.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain pagination, the role of 'account', or expected output structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'page' and 'per_page' as optional, missing the 'account' parameter entirely, and provides no semantic details about any parameter's purpose or format.

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 'List discount coupons from the Nuvemshop store' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discount coupons'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling write tool 'nuvemshop_coupons_write_create'.

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 it is for reading coupons, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the write alternative, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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 that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it creates a coupon and provides a hint about the data structure. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether authentication is required, what happens on duplicate codes, or any rate limiting. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise: two sentences plus a minor note. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the data format. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required, no output schema) and the presence of basic annotations, the description provides a workable understanding. However, it lacks full parameter documentation (the 'account' field is not explained), no example JSON, and no information about response format or error states. The hint about data structure is helpful but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines 'data' as a string with no description, and 'account' as an optional string. The description adds value by explaining that 'data' should be a JSON containing fields like code, type (with enum values: percentage|absolute|shipping), and value. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage. However, the 'account' parameter remains undocumented, and the description does not provide a complete structure or example.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose in Portuguese: 'Cria cupom de desconto na Nuvemshop' (Creates discount coupon in Nuvemshop). The verb 'create' and resource 'coupon' are explicit. The sibling list includes a generic 'nuvemshop_coupons' (likely read-only) and separate write tools for orders and products, so this tool is well-distinguished as the coupon creation endpoint.

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 by stating 'action: create' and describing the input data, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or related tools such as 'nuvemshop_coupons' for reading or other write tools. The context is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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, non-destructive traits. The description adds some behavioral context (flattened action 'get', bulk support) but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or fallback behavior on missing entities.

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

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

The description is concise (three short lines plus bullet) and front-loads the purpose. It uses a structured bullet list for actions. Minor issue: mixed language (Portuguese and English) may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 covers the main use cases (list, get, bulk) but lacks output format details, error handling, and explicit mention of read-only behavior (though annotations cover it). Missing explanation of the 'account' parameter and response schema for an 8-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 compensates by grouping parameters under actions (list vs get) and noting which are required for each action (e.g., customer_id for get). However, 'account' parameter is unexplained, and 'q' lacks a semantic hint.

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 reads customers from Nuvemshop and outlines two actions (list and get) with their parameters. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'nuvemshop_customers_list', which likely has 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 implies when to use list vs get via parameter requirements, and mentions bulk support. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'nuvemshop_customers_list' and does not specify preconditions or 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context like pagination (paginados) and bulk support via customer_ids, which is useful. However, the action list (including get) is potentially misleading since the tool is primarily for listing, and the true behavior (idempotent read) is already clear from 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 short but includes a confusing 'Ações:' block and a redundant note about flattened action. The mix of Portuguese and English adds unnecessary complexity. While not excessively long, it could be more streamlined and clearer.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should provide more completeness. It does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or sorting. The bulk support mention lacks details on limits or concurrency. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 lists some parameters (page, per_page, q, created_at_min, updated_at_min, customer_id, customer_ids) but does not explain their types, formats (e.g., date format for created_at_min), or the purpose of the 'account' parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an 8-parameter 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 states 'Leitura de clientes' (reading customers), clearly indicating the resource and action. It lists list and get actions, but the tool name and flattened action indicate the primary purpose is listing. The sibling tool 'nuvemshop_customers_get' exists, so the description could be clearer about this tool's 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 parameters for list and get actions but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'nuvemshop_customers_get'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. Bulk support is mentioned but not contextualized against other batch 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (store_id, label, apelido), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe the effect of the 'account' parameter or any other behaviors.

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 the key information front-loaded, but it omits any explanation of the parameter. Conciseness is good, but completeness suffers.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should fully explain the return value. It lists three fields but may be incomplete. The behavior of the optional parameter is ignored. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is partially adequate but lacks critical 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 schema has one optional parameter 'account' with no description and no enum or constraints. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without knowledge of its purpose or expected values. With 0% schema coverage and no compensatory description, this is a critical gap.

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' (lists) and the resource 'lojas Nuvemshop vinculadas a este install' (Nuvemshop stores linked to this install), specifying the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_list. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not explained, slightly reducing clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for listing accounts tied to the current installation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are 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 read-only and idempotent. The description adds batched execution via order_ids but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or return behavior.

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 poorly structured with a numbered list and a confusing flattening note. It could be clearer and more 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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and overlapping sibling tools, the description should cover return values and bulk execution behavior. It does not, leaving significant gaps for an 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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing parameters for list and get actions. However, it does not explain formats (e.g., dates, statuses), leaving some gaps.

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

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

The description states it reads orders with list and get actions, but it's ambiguous whether both are supported or only get (flattened action). The sibling tool nuvemshop_orders_list exists, causing overlap confusion.

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 lists parameters for list and get actions but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus the sibling list tool, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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. The description adds no significant behavioral context beyond repeating 'reading' and listing parameters. No disclosure of rate limits, data volume, or side effects, which would add value 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 somewhat verbose and mixes Portuguese with English. It has bullet-like structure but includes redundant introductory text and a flattened action note that could be integrated more cleanly. Not overly long but could be tighter.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers list and get actions, pagination, and bulk support. However, it misses documentation for the 'account' param, does not describe return format, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description attempts to explain parameters (page, per_page, filters, q, order_id, order_ids). However, it omits the 'account' parameter and provides minimal detail on format or constraints, thus partially compensating but 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 'Leitura de pedidos' (reading orders) and distinguishes between list (paginated) and get (by id) actions, providing a specific verb and resource scope that separates it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_get and write tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains basic usage (list vs get) and mentions bulk support, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nuvemshop_orders_get for single orders or write tools for modifications. No 'when not to use' context is provided.

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 are neutral. Description states 'transition de status' but doesn't elaborate on irreversibility or side effects. Adequate but not detailed beyond required fields and bulk execution.

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 mixes multiple actions (update, close, etc.) before focusing on cancel, which is slightly cluttered. Could be more streamlined for the cancel tool.

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 and 0% schema coverage, description covers action, parameters, and bulk support. Lacks return value details or prerequisites but is sufficient for cancel operation.

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%, but description clarifies parameters: order_id required, data optional with example (reason), and order_ids for bulk. Adds meaning beyond raw 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 specifies the tool cancels a Nuvemshop order, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like close, open, etc. The flattened action 'cancel' makes the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It describes the cancel action as a status transition, requires order_id, and notes optional data like reason. Bulk support is mentioned. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context with siblings provides clarity.

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 no safety hints (all false), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions mutations and bulk support but does not explain the effects of closing an order (e.g., irreversibility, status changes, or side effects). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the consequences of invoking this tool.

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 includes extraneous information (listing all actions) that expands it unnecessarily. It could be more concise by focusing solely on the close action. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, sibling tools for similar actions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, authentication needs, or the specific behavior of closing vs. other status transitions. The mention of bulk support is helpful, but overall it lacks sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It notes that order_id is required and that data is optional (with an example for cancel), but does not clarify the data parameter's role for the close action. The 'account' and 'order_ids' parameters are mentioned but not described. Missing details leave parameter usage 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 lists multiple actions (update, close, open, cancel, pack, fulfill) but then states 'Flattened action: close', indicating this tool is specifically for closing orders. This mixed message creates confusion about the tool's actual scope. The name clarifies it is for closing, but the description doesn't fully commit to that single 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 lists sibling actions (close, cancel, pack, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the others. The 'Flattened action: close' hint provides some guidance, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction, leaving ambiguity for an 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?

The description explains that fulfill is a status transition and requires order_id, and mentions bulk support. However, it does not detail the exact behavioral effect (e.g., marking items shipped, triggering notifications), potential side effects, or error conditions. Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden but is only partially 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 not concise; it starts with a generic mutation overview that applies to multiple actions, then singles out fulfill. This structure buries the relevant detail. The bulk support mention is useful but could be integrated more succinctly.

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 4 parameters and potential bulk execution, no output schema. The description lacks return value explanation, success/failure indicators, and how batch results are provided. It does not cover all parameters adequately, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the full interaction.

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 explain parameters. It mentions order_id as required and order_ids for bulk, but does not describe 'data' (optional) or 'account'. The example for cancel's data is given, but not for fulfill. This leaves ambiguity about what data can be provided for fulfill.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as handling 'fulfill' action for orders, distinguishable from siblings like 'cancel' or 'pack'. The name and the '[Flattened action: fulfill]' line make the purpose specific, though the initial generic mutation text adds some confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other order mutation tools (e.g., cancel, close). The description lists other actions but does not clarify that this tool is only for fulfill. There is no advice on prerequisites or 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 are all false, but the description indicates the tool performs status transitions and supports bulk execution via order_ids. This adds some behavioral context, though it does not detail specific side effects or prerequisites.

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 not concise; it redundantly lists all actions despite the tool being specific to 'open'. This dilutes relevant information and wastes tokens.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., order state), and does not fully define the 'open' action behavior.

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 explains that order_id is required and data is optional JSON for some actions, but does not define the format or examples for 'open'. Partial coverage, leaving ambiguity.

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 lists multiple actions (update, close, open, cancel, pack, fulfill) but the tool is named specifically for 'open'. This creates confusion about the tool's actual purpose, as it appears to be generic while the name suggests a single action.

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 its siblings (e.g., nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel, _close). The description covers all actions but does not differentiate, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool performs write operations (mutations) and supports bulk execution via order_ids. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, such as whether packing triggers downstream actions. Annotations (all false) are consistent but provide no extra context.

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

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

The description uses bullet points and separates actions, but it is somewhat verbose and in Portuguese. It could be more concise by focusing on the pack action and omitting other actions, or by clarifying that this is a combined tool.

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 no output schema, yet the description does not mention return values or error handling. It lacks prerequisites, authentication needs, and details on bulk execution behavior. For a write tool with multiple actions, more completeness 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 explains order_id (required) and order_ids (for bulk) but does not describe the 'account' parameter present in the schema. For 'data', it gives examples for update and cancel but not specifically for pack. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but misses the account field.

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 lists multiple actions (update, close, open, cancel, pack, fulfill) but the tool name specifies 'pack', causing confusion about the tool's primary purpose. It indicates that this tool handles mutations and specifically mentions 'Flattened action: pack', but does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools dedicated to single actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states required parameters for each action but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus individual sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel. There is no explanation of when packing is appropriate or when to prefer the combined tool.

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

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

The description mentions actions and required parameters but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or reversibility of changes. With no annotations providing hints, the description should provide more behavioral context but falls short.

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 paragraph listing actions with brief explanations. It is relatively concise but could be better structured (e.g., separating single-order vs bulk use). The '[Flattened action: update]' line adds confusion.

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 multiple actions, bulk support, and 4 parameters with no output schema. The description lacks details on error handling, account parameter, and specific effects of each action. It is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand and use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'data' is a JSON string with editable fields like owner_note, and that order_id is required. For cancel, it notes that data can include 'reason'. This adds significant value, though 'account' remains unexplained.

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 lists multiple actions (update, close, open, cancel, pack, fulfill) but the tool name is 'write_update', causing ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. It is unclear whether this tool performs only update or all mutations, especially given sibling tools for each action.

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 versus its siblings (e.g., nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel). The inclusion of multiple actions without differentiation is misleading, as separate sibling tools exist for each status transition.

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, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds bulk support and parameter constraints for get and list, but does not detail pagination or output behavior.

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 somewhat concise but includes redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Ações:' and 'Flattened action: get'). Could be restructured for clarity.

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 important context: no expected output format, pagination details, or handling of bulk requests. Given high complexity (11 parameters, combined actions), it 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains list parameters (page, per_page, etc.), get parameter (product_id), and bulk parameters (product_ids, category_ids). However, the 'account' parameter is not explained.

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

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

The description states it reads products from Nuvemshop, but conflates two actions (list and get) into one tool. The sibling nuvemshop_products_list exists for listing, making the purpose unclear.

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 the sibling nuvemshop_products_list. The description lists both list and get actions without differentiation, potentially confusing 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds pagination, bulk execution with product_ids/category_ids, and date filters. No contradictions. Additional context like rate limits or sorting is missing, but useful extras are present.

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 somewhat messy with line breaks and a mix of actions, a flattened action note, and bulk support. It is not overly long but could be more structured. The dual-action presentation may be confusing.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return format, error handling, and full parameter semantics. It does not explain interactions between parameters (e.g., mixing list and get params). Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 lists many parameters (page, per_page, q, category_id, published, created_at_min, updated_at_min, product_id, product_ids, category_ids) with brief roles. However, 'account' parameter is missing, and no formats or constraints are given. Partial compensation.

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 reads products from Nuvemshop and lists actions: list (paginated) and get (by id). The flattened action is list, distinguishing it from sibling nuvemshop_products_get. However, the dual action mention could confuse agents expecting both behaviors.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like nuvemshop_products_get for single product retrieval. Bulk support is mentioned but without context. The description does not help an agent decide between list and get scenarios.

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

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

The description indicates write behavior (create/update) and bulk support, but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations. Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and do not add clarity. More detail on reversible actions or error handling is missing.

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 fairly concise with a clear structure: purpose, action breakdown, and bulk support note. The front-loaded first sentence effectively states the purpose. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'ações') does not detract significantly.

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

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more details on return values, error cases, and the exact JSON format. The current description covers basic actions but lacks completeness for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without 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 description adds some meaning to the 'data' parameter (JSON with fields like name, variants) and explains the roles of product_id (required for update) and product_ids (bulk support). However, the 'account' parameter is not explained, and the JSON structure is not fully specified. Since schema coverage is 0%, 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 that the tool creates or edits products in Nuvemshop, listing specific actions (create, update). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_products_write_update, but the overlap in functionality is not explicitly clarified, leaving potential ambiguity.

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. The description mentions actions and bulk support but does not provide context on prerequisites, when to prefer create vs update, or how it differs from similar tools like nuvemshop_products_write_update.

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 no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that create requires full product data (name, variants) and update only changed fields, and bulk execution via product_ids. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, auth needs, 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 with a clear list format for actions. However, the phrase '[Flattened action: update]' is confusing and adds unnecessary complexity. Overall, it is well-structured but could be slightly tighter.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality and actions but omits the account parameter, return format, error scenarios, and lacks examples. It provides enough to use the tool for basic cases but has gaps for a full understanding.

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 explains the data parameter as JSON for create/update, product_id for update, and product_ids for bulk. But the account parameter is not mentioned, and the data parameter's internal structure is only vaguely described ('name, variants[], etc.').

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 creates or edits products (Cria ou edita produtos), identifying the resource and action. It distinguishes between create and update actions, but the phrase '[Flattened action: update]' introduces ambiguity about the primary mode, and the sibling tool nuvemshop_products_write_create exists for creation, so the purpose isn't fully focused.

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 lists actions (create vs update) and mentions requirements (product_id for update, data format for each). It supports bulk via product_ids. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like nuvemshop_products_write_create, nor give clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that conversation data is needed for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, such as whether a ticket is created or whether the report is asynchronous, though the annotations lower 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 consists of two tight sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the key usage instruction. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 three-parameter reporting tool with annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the unexplained `context` parameter and the absence of any indication of what the response or outcome will be, though no output schema is expected.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the `conversation` parameter via 'conversation array with recent messages,' leaving the required `message` and optional `context` undefined. The agent must guess at their intended content.

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 the verb 'Report' and explicitly enumerates three targets: 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and easily distinguishable from the sibling calculo_* and authentication tools, which serve entirely different functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description establishes a clear context: use when a user reports a problem or wants to provide feedback. It also adds practical guidance to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with bug reporting, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating call. The description adds little beyond that—it names the output as versions but doesn't specify the format (e.g., semver strings, JSON object) or whether the output is human-readable. Since the annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 of 9 words, front-loading the action ('Show') and the object ('version'). There is zero waste, and it fully conveys the tool's purpose within its scope. This is a model of 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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent can confidently invoke it without additional context. The only minor gap is that the return format is unspecified, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on the output structure (e.g., 'returns a plain-text summary') would elevate completeness. Still, the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description is consistent with that—it correctly implies that no input is required.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all calculation or authentication tools. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'show' returns (e.g., a text summary vs. structured data), but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that this tool is for checking version information, which makes sense in contexts where an agent needs to confirm platform/adapter versions before proceeding. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention whether version information is needed for authentication or compatibility checks. Given the sibling tools are all calculations, the usage context is reasonably clear, but not explicitly delineated.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by detailing what kind of state is returned, including connection status and account bindings, which helps the agent understand the tool's informational scope.

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

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

A single tightly packed sentence with the main action front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited list of return contents. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know before calling: what information it will receive. No output schema exists, but the description essentially provides a light output contract by enumerating the returned components.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. Per calibration, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description's output-focused content is more than sufficient.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific enough to distinguish it from computational siblings like calculo_* and action tools like authenticate or connect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys that this is the tool to call when an agent needs an overview or snapshot of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or name alternatives such as show_version, but the context is clear enough for routine selection.

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