Nuvemshop

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: permanent vs session login, and that calling with no args returns a link. 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?

Description is slightly verbose with embedded instructions (e.g., 'best: add it to config'). Could be more concise while retaining clarity. Front-loaded with 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?

Covers main use cases and workflow, but lacks details on error handling, validation, or what happens on invalid token. Sufficient for a simple authentication tool with one optional param and 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?

Schema has 0% coverage for the token parameter. Description explains the token is a JWT and how to use it (session-only). Adds meaning beyond schema type.

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: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and the resource (access token), and distinguishes from siblings by context—no other sibling is for authentication.

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 context for when to use: for login via browser, copy token, and either configure permanently or paste for session. No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned, but siblings are unrelated, so guidance is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the two condition-dependent output formats (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which is beyond what annotations alone 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 two sentences long, efficiently covering both response scenarios with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and the annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and its behavioral outcomes. It explains both possible states, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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

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

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies as no additional param info is necessary.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'connection status and URLs'. It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status check rather than performing authentication.

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 state by detailing two possible responses (authenticated vs. missing credentials). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit differentiation from 'authenticate'.

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 goes beyond annotations by explaining that invoke works even if the MCP is not installed, that credential and payment issues return specific links, and that admin rights are needed for writes. Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-idempotent, which align with the described 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 dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence adds value, though some structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability. It balances detail with brevity for the complexity of the 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 the tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and key behavioral details (e.g., invoke vs install, auth/payment flows). It could also describe return types or expected outputs, but it is fairly complete for guiding 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the action parameter and its enum values, and touches on other parameters like tool_id and mcp_id. However, not all 13 parameters are described (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug are not explained). It adds significant meaning but not complete coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states that this is the official marketplace for discovering and running MCPs, and positions it as the primary tool to use before any external registries. It specifies the resource (MCPs/tools) and the action (search, describe, invoke, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_*.

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 THIS tool FIRST' and outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke). Differentiates between invoke (one-off) and install (permanent), and specifies prerequisites for write operations (workspace owner/admin). This helps the agent decide when to use each action.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description 'Lista categorias' is consistent but adds no new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. 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 that conveys the core purpose and notes optional parameters. Every word is functional, no 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description fails to explain the 'account' parameter, pagination behavior, or what 'parent' means. For a simple list operation, more detail is needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists three optional parameters (page, per_page, parent) but omits 'account' and provides no explanation of their semantics (e.g., what 'parent' filters, how pagination works). Insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'categories of the Nuvemshop store'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with coupons, products, orders, etc., making 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nuvemshop_products_list or nuvemshop_coupons. It does not specify conditions, 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which match the listing behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the params being optional.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and optional params. No unnecessary words.

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

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

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description fails to explain the crucial 'account' parameter and provides no details about pagination limits or defaults. While the purpose is clear, the lack of parameter documentation leaves the agent underinformed.

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%. The description mentions two of three parameters (page, per_page) as optional but omits the 'account' parameter entirely. Without schema descriptions, the description should cover all params.

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 the verb 'Lista' and resource 'cupons de desconto', clearly distinguishing from write sibling '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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nuvemshop_coupons_write_create' or other list tools. It only mentions optional pagination params.

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). The description adds 'action: create' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It is insufficient for a write operation.

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 short but repeats 'action: create' unnecessarily. The structure is acceptable, but could be more streamlined.

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 simple input (2 params) and no output schema. The description covers the key data parameter but omits account and does not explain return values, errors, or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so no parameter descriptions exist. The description explains 'data = JSON com code, type, value, etc.', adding significant meaning by specifying expected JSON fields (code, type with enums, value). Account is not explained, but the primary parameter is well-described.

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 'Cria cupom de desconto na Nuvemshop', specifying the verb (create) and resource (discount coupon). It distinguishes itself from siblings by the name, and the action:create reinforces the purpose.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nuvemshop_coupons for reading). The description only says what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool supports list/get modes and bulk execution via customer_ids, which is useful beyond annotations but not extensive.

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, using bullet points for actions and listing parameters without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to scan, though the mix of Portuguese and English could be streamlined.

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 8 parameters, the description covers the main functionality and parameter groupings. However, it lacks explanation of the 'account' parameter, return format, and how the tool differs from the sibling list tool, 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does so for 6 out of 8 parameters (page, per_page, q, created_at_min, updated_at_min, customer_id, customer_ids) but omits 'account'. This adds meaning but is incomplete.

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 reads customers from Nuvemshop, with two modes: paginated list and single get by ID. However, the presence of a sibling tool 'nuvemshop_customers_list' creates potential confusion about which to use, 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 lists which parameters apply to list vs get actions and mentions bulk support, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the separate list tool, and does not explain when to choose list vs get within the 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by mentioning bulk execution support and the flattened action, but does not disclose pagination limits, default ordering, or error 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 brief and front-loaded, but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Ações:' list followed by '[Flattened action: list]') and line breaks that could be streamlined.

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 multiple actions, the description lacks details on output format, default values, parameter interactions, and the 'account' parameter. Bulk support is mentioned but not fully explained.

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 names several parameters (page, per_page, q, created_at_min, updated_at_min, customer_id, customer_ids) and their roles, but omits the 'account' parameter and does not explain parameter types or formats.

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 reads customers from the store and differentiates between list and get actions. However, the presence of a sibling tool 'nuvemshop_customers_get' for single customer retrieval makes the purpose slightly overlapping and confusing.

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 the sibling 'nuvemshop_customers_get'. The description lists actions but does not provide decision criteria such as 'use this tool for paginated listing, use customers_get for single customer'.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds that it returns specific fields, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or pagination behavior. The annotations carry most of the burden here.

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 short sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, but it could benefit from additional structure or bullet points 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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and several sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'install' refers to, the return format beyond listing fields, or how to interpret the parameter. The agent would need to infer or test.

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 has one optional 'account' parameter with no description and 0% schema_description_coverage. The description does not explain what the parameter does, leaving the agent to guess its purpose. This is a significant 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 tool lists Nuvemshop stores linked to the install and mentions the returned fields (store_id, label, apelido). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like nuvemshop_customers_list or nuvemshop_products_list, though the context 'vinculadas a este install' provides implicit differentiation.

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 alternatives. The description implies it is for listing linked accounts, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest related tools like authenticate or connect for account management.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by elaborating on the 'flattened action: get' and bulk support, which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. 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 relatively concise, covering actions, flattened action, and bulk support. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it mixes Portuguese and English, which may reduce clarity for non-Portuguese speakers.

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 11 parameters, the description explains the two modes of operation (list/get) and bulk support. However, it omits return value descriptions, pagination defaults, rate limits, or other behavioral details that would make the tool fully understandable.

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

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

Input schema has 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description lists most parameters and groups them by action (list filtering params vs get order_id) and mentions order_ids for bulk. While it adds context on parameter usage, it lacks detailed semantics such as format requirements, default values, or constraints.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is for reading orders from Nuvemshop stores ('Leitura de pedidos da loja Nuvemshop'). It distinguishes between two actions (list paginated orders and get order by ID) and mentions bulk support. However, the tool name 'nuvemshop_orders_get' implies a specific get action, yet the description includes list functionality, which may cause confusion. This is mitigated by sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_list, but still slightly ambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests when to use each action (list vs get) by listing parameters, and mentions bulk support. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like nuvemshop_orders_list or write tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about pagination, filtering parameters, and bulk execution via order_ids. No contradictions, and it extends understanding 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?

Description is short and uses a clear structure with actions listed. No extraneous sentences. Could be slightly more organized, but overall 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 11 parameters and no output schema, description covers high-level functionality but lacks details on pagination limits, default values, error handling, or response format. Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for a production tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists 8 of 11 parameters under 'list' action and mentions order_id and order_ids separately. However, it does not explain the meaning or expected format of any parameter (e.g., status values, date format). This is insufficient for precise tool invocation.

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

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

Description clearly states it's for reading orders ('Leitura de pedidos') and specifies two actions: list (paginated) and get (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_get, though there is potential overlap. The verb+resource is specific.

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?

Description lists parameters for list action and mentions get for single order, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. nuvemshop_orders_get. Bulk support hint is provided, but no exclusion criteria or when-not advice.

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 bulk support and that data is optional (e.g., 'cancel aceita { reason }'), but does not explain what cancellation entails (e.g., reversibility, refund behavior, or side effects). Annotations provide no help (destructiveHint: false), so the description should have offered more detail.

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

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

The description is moderately concise but includes a list of actions that are irrelevant for this specific tool, adding confusion. It could be focused solely on the cancel action and its parameters.

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

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

With no output schema, no descriptions in schema, and many sibling tools, the description should explain what happens after cancellation (e.g., return value, effect on order status). It does not address these, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 clarifies that 'data' is a JSON with editable fields and that for cancel it may include 'reason'. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter or the difference between 'order_id' and 'order_ids', though it mentions bulk support.

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 specifies '[Flattened action: cancel]', causing confusion about the tool's exact purpose. The name clearly indicates a cancel operation, but the description dilutes 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this cancel tool versus other order write tools (e.g., nuvemshop_orders_write_close, nuvemshop_orders_write_fulfill). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, 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 already indicate this is a write operation. The description adds that it transitions status and accepts optional data, but does not disclose details like reversibility of close or potential side effects. The behavioral insight is adequate but not enhanced 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 relatively concise but includes extraneous information about other actions not relevant to close. The flattened action note is helpful, but the mixed language and lack of focus reduce structure quality.

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 (multiple actions implied, bulk support) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how bulk execution works. For a specialized close tool, the description should be more focused and complete.

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 order_id is required and data is optional, but for the close action, it does not specify what fields data can contain. The description focuses on other actions like cancel, leaving close's parameter semantics unclear.

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, etc.) but the tool is specifically named 'write_close' and includes a flattened action note indicating only close. This creates confusion about the tool's exact 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 states requirements (order_id) and mentions bulk support, but does not differentiate when to use this tool versus siblings like nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel or nuvemshop_orders_write_open. The grouping of multiple actions in one tool further blurs usage 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 indicate non-readonly, so mutation is expected. The description adds that bulk support is available and data parameter is optional. However, it does not explain the specific effect of fulfilling (e.g., status change, side effects), nor does it describe required prerequisites or consequences beyond what annotations 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 reasonably structured with bullet points, but it includes a generic block describing all actions, which adds unnecessary length for a tool specifically for fulfill. The '[Flattened action: fulfill]' note helps, but the generic introduction could be trimmed.

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 (mutation, bulk, optional data) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., order must be paid?), and specific behavior of fulfill compared to other status transitions.

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 explain parameters. It explains order_ids for bulk, but does not describe the data parameter for fulfill (e.g., expected structure or defaults). The account parameter is completely unmentioned. Only order_id and order_ids are partially clarified.

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 mutations on Nuvemshop orders, with the note '[Flattened action: fulfill]' specifying its exact purpose. The title also directly states 'fulfill'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel or nuvemshop_orders_write_pack.

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 multiple actions (update, close, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. It implies fulfill is the action through the note, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling tool names help infer purpose, but direct guidance is missing.

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

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the description labeling it as a mutation. The description details required parameters for the open action but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond status transition.

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 lengthy and lists multiple actions, which dilutes focus. The flattened action notation helps, but the structure could be more direct by focusing solely on the open action.

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 sibling tools for specific order actions, the description makes it clear that this tool handles the open action. However, it lacks explanation of the open process, expected output, or state machine context. Bulk support is noted but not fully explained.

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 explains that order_id is required and data is optional, but does not describe what data contains for the open action (only gives an example for cancel). It mentions bulk support with order_ids but no details on account parameter.

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

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

The description lists multiple actions but explicitly marks 'open' as the flattened action, making it clear that this tool is for opening orders. However, listing other actions (update, close, etc.) could cause initial 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?

The description implies that this tool is for the 'open' action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_write_close or nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel. No guidance on 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 non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds bulk support (using order_ids) but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, authorization requirements, or specific behavior of the 'pack' action (e.g., status transition details). Minimal added 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 not concise; it lists multiple actions that are irrelevant to this specific tool (e.g., cancel, fulfill, update) which are handled by sibling tools. The statement '[Flattened action: pack]' is unclear. Front-loading is present but the extraneous information harms 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and specific sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'pack' action does (e.g., updates order status to 'packed'), what the 'data' string should contain for pack, or whether 'account' is required. The batch support is noted, but the overall behavioral and parameter context is lacking.

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 adds some meaning: it explains that order_id is required, data is optional for actions, and order_ids enables batch execution. However, it does not specify the format or allowed values for data in the context of 'pack', nor does it explain the 'account' parameter. Partial compensation for missing schema details.

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

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

The description states it performs mutations on Nuvemshop orders and lists 'pack' as one action, but the tool name and sibling tools indicate it is specifically for the 'pack' action. The inclusion of other actions (update, close, cancel, fulfill) creates ambiguity about its specific purpose, making it somewhat clear but not precise.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools for individual actions (e.g., nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel, nuvemshop_orders_write_fulfill). The description lists multiple actions but does not specify that this tool is for the 'pack' action or when it is 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?

Annotations provide no hints (all false), yet the description only states basic requirements (order_id, data optional) and bulk support. It does not disclose behavior differences between actions, error handling, or whether the mutation is destructive or idempotent.

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 contains confusing elements like '[Flattened action: update]' and a mix of actions without clear structure. Every sentence could be 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and multiple potential actions. The description lacks details on return values, error cases, prerequisites, and how to specify each action, making it incomplete for an effective AI agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'data' (JSON with editable fields, example owner_note), 'order_id', and 'order_ids' for bulk. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned, and the description does not fully map actions to required fields.

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

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

The description lists multiple actions (close, open, cancel, pack, fulfill) but the tool name is 'write_update' and it says '[Flattened action: update]', creating confusion about the tool's actual purpose. It fails to clearly specify whether this tool is for update only or for all mutations.

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 vs sibling tools like nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel. The description implies multiple actions but does not explain the context for choosing this over separate 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool supports multiple actions (list, get, bulk) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, maximum per_page, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds minimal 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 reasonably concise but uses a bullet-like list mixed with prose, which is slightly messy. It front-loads the purpose but includes a redundant '[Flattened action: get]' line. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be cleaner.

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 11 parameters, lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides moderate context: it explains the two main actions and bulk capability, and which parameters belong to each. However, it does not describe default values, pagination behavior, parameter interactions (e.g., product_id vs list params), or the return format. This is adequate for basic usage but not fully comprehensive.

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

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

The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate. The description lists several parameters (page, per_page, q, category_id, published, created_at_min, updated_at_min for list; product_id for get; product_ids, category_ids for bulk) but does not explain their types, formats, or examples. Parameters like 'account' are not mentioned. The coverage is partial, leaving users to infer details from parameter names.

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 does product reading (Leitura) and distinguishes between list (paginated) and get (by id) actions, as well as bulk support. However, there is a sibling tool 'nuvemshop_products_list' that may cause confusion, and the tool name 'get' suggests a single purpose but the description includes list functionality, 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 provides guidelines on when to use list (paginated with filters) vs get (by product_id) and mentions bulk support with product_ids/category_ids. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or how it relates to sibling nuvemshop_products_list, leaving some ambiguity about the best tool for a given scenario.

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 states 'Leitura' (reading) which aligns with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as rate limits or auth details.

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

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

The description is relatively short but mixes Portuguese and English, uses a bullet list and a flat note. It is adequate but could be better structured and more focused.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, error handling, and date format. It is incomplete for effective tool 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?

With 0% schema coverage and 11 parameters, the description only lists parameter names without explaining their semantics or format (e.g., date strings, boolean meaning, search field). This is a significant 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 it is for reading products from Nuvemshop store, details two actions (list and get) with parameters, and specifies the flattened action as list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvemshop_products_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?

It lists parameters for list and get actions and mentions bulk support, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus nuvemshop_products_get or other alternatives. No when-not-to-use instructions.

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 not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds context about bulk support and the nature of create/update actions, but does not disclose error handling, success responses, or potential side effects (e.g., overwriting fields).

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The list of actions and bulk mention are useful. However, the '[Flattened action: create]' note is confusing and unnecessary, slightly reducing 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, multiple actions), the description covers the two actions and their parameter requirements but fails to explain the return value, error conditions, or the role of the 'account' parameter. It also does not differentiate from the sibling update tool.

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

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

The description explains that 'data' should be a JSON string with fields like 'name' and 'variants' for create, and only changed fields for update. It clarifies 'product_id' is required for update and 'product_ids' for bulk. The 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving some 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 clearly states the tool creates or edits products in Nuvemshop, specifying two actions (create and update). However, it fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'nuvemshop_products_write_update', which likely handles updates exclusively, causing potential 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?

The description provides basic requirements for each action (e.g., product_id for update) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling update tool. It also does not explain when bulk execution is appropriate or any prerequisites like authentication.

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 bulk behavior (product_ids) beyond annotations, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency for a write operation.

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?

Structured with actions and bulk support, but redundant create/update mix and 'Flattened action' line wastes space. Could be more 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?

Missing explanation for 'account' parameter and no output schema. For a tool with 4 params and 0% schema coverage, description is 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?

Explains data parameter format (JSON) and use of product_id/product_ids, but fails to mention 'account' parameter. With 0% schema coverage, more detail needed.

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 states both create and update, but sibling tool nuvemshop_products_write_create exists, creating ambiguity. The phrase '[Flattened action: update]' further confuses the intended operation.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus nuvemshop_products_write_create. Mentions bulk support but no context for choosing this 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?

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive, but also idempotent (idempotentHint: true), which seems questionable for a bug report tool. The description adds only the instruction to include a conversation array. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, side effects (e.g., creating a ticket), or expected response. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is very concise: two sentences totaling 19 words. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives a key usage instruction. It is front-loaded and has no filler, but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points for each parameter).

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 is adequate for a simple tool with no output schema. It covers purpose and a critical instruction. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation), whether it is synchronous, and descriptions for all parameters. Given the low schema coverage, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description hints that the 'conversation' parameter should contain recent messages, but does not explain 'message' or 'context'. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate more; it only partially addresses one parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies distinct resource types. This differentiates it from sibling tools, which are primarily e-commerce management actions like 'nuvemshop_orders_list'.

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

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

The description implicitly tells when to use the tool by listing its use cases (bug, missing feature, feedback). It also provides an explicit instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; description adds specific version context, adding value beyond structured fields.

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

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

Single, concise sentence with no extraneous information, front-loaded with 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?

Description fully explains the tool's function for a simple no-parameter retrieval tool, adequate without 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?

No parameters exist; schema description coverage is 100%, and description adds no param info, consistent with baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 it shows current MCP platform and adapter versions with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives, but the tool's simplicity implies usage for version checking.

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 context about the returned state (MCPs, connection status, catalog counts) without contradicting 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no extraneous words. Earns its place.

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?

Without output schema, description covers the return value (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog counts). Adequate for a simple state tool, though could include format or example.

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

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

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly implies no input needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, and catalog tool counts. It uses specific nouns and verbs, distinguishing it from sibling 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 implies use for checking toolkit status but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to. No alternatives are provided or excluded.

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