Prefeitura RJ Rio de Janeiro: Multas (Descritivos)

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, which is consistent. The description also discloses that it opens a browser login flow, returns an access link, and that pasted tokens are session-only (expiring). It also mentions the permanent alternative via config header, adding behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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

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

The description is concise but packs significant information in two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('log in in the browser'), then provides detailed instructions. While slightly dense with technical parentheses, every sentence contributes value.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (authentication flow, two modes), the description covers key aspects: how to initiate, what to do with token, permanent vs session, and no-arg behavior. However, it lacks explicit instructions on what to do after receiving the link (e.g., user opens, then calls back with token) and doesn't describe response format, but since there is no output schema, some gaps remain.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'token' is undocumented. However, the description fully explains the token parameter's purpose: 'paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes'. It adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify token format validation or interplay with no-args call.

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 initiates an authentication flow: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token'. It distinguishes between two modes: permanent config via header and session-only via token parameter. Though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the purpose is concrete and not a tautology.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage context: when to use it (for authentication), how to use it (browser login, copy token), and two distinct invocation patterns: with no args to get link, or with token after pasting. It also contrasts with the recommended permanent config approach. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need session-only login', the 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 indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency by explaining the two return states and that missing credentials yield connect_url. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is concise, two sentences, with no redundant information. It clearly structures the outcome based on conditions.

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 an output schema, the description explains the key return values (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) and the conditions. It lacks detailed structure of URLs or pending, but is adequate for most usage.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, and baseline for high coverage is a 3.

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, and distinguishes between authenticated and missing credentials cases. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 conditional behavior (when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing), which guides usage. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the two-state outcome is sufficient for most cases.

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 only readOnlyHint:false and openWorldHint:true, but the description adds critical behaviors: invoke runs one-off without installing, writes require owner/admin, and auth/payment flows involve returning connect/checkout links. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then weaving through the action flow. Every sentence adds meaningful context, so the length is justified for a multi-action 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 description covers the main flow, edge cases (connect/checkout links), permission requirements, and prompt library functionality. While it doesn't detail exact return formats, the explanations of each action's outcome are sufficient. No output schema exists, so the description handles most expected information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the core parameters: action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields within the context of each action. It does not detail all 23 parameters, but provides sufficient guidance for the primary workflow.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering both catalog search and execution. It enumerates distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by describing its role as the central MCP hub.

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

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

Explicit guidance is given on when to use invoke vs install, when to use list_tools, and how to handle billing/auth via links. It also names alternative actions like 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and explains when to use subscribe/cancel.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: pay-per-query via prepaid credit, no platform credentials needed, official public data, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential operational context (hosting, payment, credentials, legal responsibility). Each sentence delivers useful information, though the LGPD clause is slightly tangential. Overall, compact and structured.

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

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

For a one-parameter query tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: official source, payment cost, credential requirements, and data confidentiality. It does not describe the return value in detail, but that is less critical given the single focused query and lack of 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?

The schema has a single required string 'placa' with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description never explains what 'placa' is or what format is expected. The agent must infer the meaning solely from the tool name and the Portuguese word 'placa', which is a notable 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?

Purpose is clear: 'consulta em fonte oficial' of 'Multas (Descritivos)' from the Rio de Janeiro city hall. The verb 'consulta' plus resource 'Multas' gives a specific action, and this clearly distinguishes it from the platform-level sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and show_version.

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 useful context: it queries an official source, requires prepaid credit, needs no platform credentials, and is not confidential data. It implies when to use it (paid quota for official fine information) but doesn't explicitly state 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 convey readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true(migrations). The description adds that it sends a bug/feedback report externally, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations ensure, but doesn't detail side effects or privacy implications.

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

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

Two concise sentences; every word earns its place. No redundancy.

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

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

For a simple reporting tool with three parametersces, the description gives enough context for correct usage. It doesn't explain the return or consequences, but annotations cover safety, and the action is straightforward.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the conversation parameter (recent messages for reproduction) but doesn't clarify 'context' or the format of 'message'. Partial compensation, hence a 3.

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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, with a specific verb and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplaces, etc.) by its unique 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?

It implies when to use by naming its three purposescars, and gives a practical hint about including the conversation array. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve this function, so context 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 and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Show' is perfectly consistent with that. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond what's obvious (e.g., no mention of output format, caching, or that it makes a network call). This is neutral and non-contradictory, so a middle score 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?

A single, complete, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what's needed and nothing else.

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

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

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no side effects, the description is completely sufficient. It tells the agent everything it needs to know: calling it will return version info. The sibling tools don't overlap with this purpose.

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, making the description the only relevant information. The schema covers everything (100% coverage trivially, since there's nothing to cover). There's nothing more to add.

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?

Clear action verb 'Show' plus specific scope: lists what versions ('MCP platform and adapter') and is completely unambiguous. Even though the name 'show_version' is somewhat generic, the description fully specifies what it does and distinguishes it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' or 'marketplace'.

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

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

This is a parameterless, side-effect-free info tool. There are no alternative choices to make or contexts where it would be misapplied. The description needs no 'when to use' guidance because the tool has no side effects or alternatives; its use is self-evident from its name and description.

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 true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the contents of the state (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts) but does not disclose any caveats like data freshness, potential caching, or whether the state is live. This goes slightly beyond annotations but remains minimal.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and return value, then enumerates the key components. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy 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?

This is a simple no-parameter, read-only info tool with strong annotations and no output schema. The description fully covers what the return state includes, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing semantically to add beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description correctly focuses on the return value instead.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), with explicit details about installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version.

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 alternatives. The description simply states what it returns without explaining contexts like inspecting state before connecting or troubleshooting connectivity, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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