Procfy

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: calling without token returns a link, with token authenticates. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, which aligns. No contradictions. The description adds context about config vs. session 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 informative without being overly long. It is front-loaded with the best practice and then explains alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.):' is slightly niche but acceptable.

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 authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers both usage modes, token format, and setup options. It does not describe the return value or error handling, but given simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an AI 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 description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single optional 'token' parameter as a JWT string pasted by the user. It also clarifies the no-args case, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authentication for IDE agents via browser login and token copy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication flow. The verb 'authenticate' and resource 'access token' are specific and 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 explicit usage guidance: two methods (permanent config vs. session paste) and explains when to call with no args to get a login link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about response structure (authenticated vs connect_url), providing value beyond annotations without 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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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

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

Given zero parameters and a simple status check function, the description completely explains the tool's behavior and return values. No missing information for effective 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level details, but with zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as nothing is missing.

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 specifics about response states. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'authenticate', missing an opportunity to clarify distinct purposes.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. The description implies a status-check role but lacks explicit when-to-use or 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 indicate only that the tool is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral context: writes require owner/admin, invoke runs one-off without installing or bloating the tool list, install makes permanent changes, and specific return behaviors for connect/checkout links. This goes far beyond the annotations.

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

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

Though long, the description is densely informative and every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity and core flow, then systematically covers exceptions, billing, permissions, and the prompt library. There is 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?

Given 23 parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers all primary actions, expected outcomes, prerequisites, and caveats. It explains the full lifecycle from discovery to invocation, installation, billing, and prompt publishing, making the tool's behavior predictable and actionable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping actions to key parameters (action=search with query, describe with mcp_id, invoke with tool_id and arguments). It also covers prompt parameters like prompt_body and prompt_slug. However, not every parameter is individually explained (e.g., tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets), leaving some fields inferable only from context.

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 mcp.ai marketplace, a catalog of MCP/tools and a way to run them. It enumerates distinct capabilities: search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily focused on specific procfy financial operations.

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

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

The description provides an explicit core flow: action=search discovers MCPs, describe returns profiles, invoke runs the tool. It gives direct when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' and 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'. It also explains what happens when credentials or payment are needed, detailing 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 indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the transaction is immediately visible, required permissions, or side effects. The reference to API docs is helpful but external.

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

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

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second details the main parameter and directs to documentation. No redundant 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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should mention what happens after creation (e.g., confirmation response, ID). It does not discuss return values, the optional 'account' parameter, or error cases. The external link partially compensates but the description alone is insufficient for fully informed 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?

The input schema provides only type 'string' for both parameters with 0% coverage. The description adds valuable semantics for the 'data' parameter, explaining it is a JSON string containing fields like type, amount, date, etc. However, the 'account' parameter is left 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?

Description clearly states 'Cria uma transação na Procfy.' (Creates a transaction in Procfy). The verb 'create' and resource 'transaction' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like procfy_get_transaction (read) and procfy_list_transactions (list).

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like procfy_get_transaction or when not to use it. Does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an authenticated account or existing bank account.

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 adds bulk execution capability beyond annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description does not contradict annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences, each providing essential information: core functionality and bulk variant. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the simple nature of the tool and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains functionality. Could mention return fields, but not required for completeness.

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 clarifies that bank_account_id is the primary identifier and bank_account_ids supports bulk. However, the 'account' parameter is left 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 clearly states the tool details a bank account including balance by ID, and mentions bulk support. It distinguishes from list tools by specifying retrieval by ID.

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 when an account ID is available, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like procfy_list_bank_accounts or provide guidance on 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior details: batch retry/backoff and per-ID error handling, which goes beyond annotations and sets proper expectations.

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 efficiently written in one sentence, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the batch behavior. 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain return values or structure. While it mentions per-ID errors, the overall result format is missing, which could hinder an AI agent's understanding of tool output.

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 two key parameter paths (transaction_ids with max 50 and single transaction_id) and batch behavior. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 retrieves transaction details by ID, supporting both single and batch (max 50) queries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like procfy_list_transactions and procfy_create_transaction.

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 when to use the tool (for retrieving transactions by ID, single or batch) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. The use case is clear given siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's addition of the return structure (id, label) adds some behavioral context, but does not exceed what is expected given the annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output. No wasted words.

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

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

For a simple listing tool with annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the optional parameter and usage context. It could be improved by explaining the 'account' parameter and when to use this tool over siblings.

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 for the 'account' parameter, and the description does not explain the parameter's purpose or usage. This is a critical gap for a tool with a single 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists Procfy connections (accounts) linked to the install and specifies the returned fields (id, label). This differentiates it from sibling list tools like procfy_list_bank_accounts and procfy_list_transactions.

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 does not mention any filtering, 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so transparency burden is lower. However, the description adds only 'Paginado' (paginated) without explaining pagination behavior or rate limits, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

Extremely short (one sentence) but under-specified; it omits critical information about parameters and usage. Conciseness should not come at the cost of 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to provide enough information for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It only hints at pagination via 'Paginado' but fails to define 'page', 'items', 'account', or 'filters', leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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), resource (bank accounts), and scope (Procfy, paginated). It effectively distinguishes from sibling list tools like procfy_list_accounts which lists accounts, not bank accounts.

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, no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where it is preferred. The description only provides a bare statement of function.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the paginated nature, which is additional 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?

Two sentences, very concise with no extra words. However, a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing parameters) would improve 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 four parameters, no output schema, and minimal parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the meaning of 'account' and 'filters', and how pagination works.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but only hints at pagination through the word 'Paginado'. The 'page' and 'items' parameters are implied, but 'account' and 'filters' are not explained 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 it lists categories (chart of accounts) from Procfy and is paginated. 'Lista categorias' uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like procfy_list_accounts.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The pagination hint and tool name imply use for listing categories, but 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.

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 description's main behavioral addition is 'Paginado' (paginated). This is useful but lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., how to paginate, default page size, or rate limits). The description 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 brief (one sentence plus one word), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but every sentence does not earn its place because critical information (like parameter semantics) is missing.

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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage context, the description is severely inadequate. The agent cannot understand how to use the tool correctly (e.g., what 'filters' accepts, what properties are returned).

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 only implies that 'page' and 'items' relate to pagination through the word 'Paginado', but does not explain 'account' or 'filters' at all. No descriptions, formats, or examples are provided for any of the four parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists contacts (clients/suppliers) of Procfy and is paginated. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like procfy_list_accounts by naming 'contacts'. However, it could be more explicit about what 'contacts' entails (e.g., clients and suppliers) and does not distinguish from other list 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like procfy_list_accounts or procfy_list_transactions. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding which list tool 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 already indicate it's read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it is paginated ('Paginado'), which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not mention ordering, rate limits, or 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 extremely concise with two phrases, no unnecessary words. However, it is in Portuguese and lacks sentence structure; but for a short description it is 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It only covers pagination but leaves out filtering behavior, required account context, and return format, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 compensate. It only hints at pagination (relevant for page/items) but does not explain account or filters. The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving agents uninformed about parameter meanings.

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

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

The description clearly states it lists Procfy cost centers ('Lista centros de custo da Procfy') and mentions pagination, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like procfy_list_accounts or procfy_list_bank_accounts.

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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Only mentions pagination, which is implicit from the parameters.

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 confirm safe read-only behavior (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive). The description adds pagination behavior (max 50 per page) and filter capability, which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action. Each sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second details pagination and filtering. Minor room for tightening, 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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers pagination and filtering but omits explanation of the 'account' parameter and return format. While the tool's purpose is clear, key behavioral details are missing, leaving moderate 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 coverage, the description must compensate. It explains page/items for pagination and mentions `filters` JSON for filtering by date, account, category. However, the 'account' parameter in the schema is not addressed in the description, creating ambiguity about its role versus the filter JSON.

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 'Lista transações' (lists transactions) with specific types (receita/despesa/transferência/folha/imposto). It clearly differentiates from siblings like procfy_get_transaction (single transaction) and procfy_create_transaction (creation), providing a specific verb and resource 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 pagination (page/items, max 50) and filtering via `filters`, implying usage for bulk listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like procfy_get_transaction, nor does it provide exclusions or context for 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 indicate safe read operation; description adds the key behavioral trait of pagination ('Paginado'), which is not directly conveyed by annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more informative but remains 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?

No output schema and no description of return format or parameter semantics leaves the agent underinformed 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not address 'page', 'items', 'account', or 'filters' 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 action (list), resource (users), and scope (Procfy account), and distinguishes from siblings like procfy_list_accounts.

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., other list tools). No mentioning of prerequisites or when not to use.

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 idempotent=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the conversation array should contain recent messages for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like response behavior 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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to read.

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 the tool's purpose (reporting), the description provides enough context for the agent to understand what to do and include. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable for such a 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 specifies that the 'conversation' parameter should include recent messages, adding meaning. The 'message' parameter is implied to be the bug report, and 'context' is not explained. Partial 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 the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly procfy-related or authentication 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 instructs to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' guiding when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.

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 does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover its safe, read-only nature. The description adds no extra context about 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 a single, complete sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's 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 zero parameters, good annotations, and a simple output (version strings), the description is fully adequate. No additional information 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, and the schema covers 100% of the (nonexistent) parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool displays current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'Show' and resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions' are specific and unambiguous. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on authentication, connection, or accounting operations.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. For such a simple tool, usage context is inherently clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what information is returned, giving the agent a concrete expectation of the tool's output.

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, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and then lists the relevant details. Every phrase earns its place, and there is 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?

Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the agent should expect. It lists all major elements of the returned state, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for an agent to select 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 takes no parameters, so the schema is fully self-explanatory. The description genuinely supplements by explaining what the returned state contains, which satisfies the baseline for minimal parameter semantics.

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 the exact resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the contained details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or marketplace.

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

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

The description clearly frames the tool as a way to inspect the current toolkit state, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context is clear enough that no exclusions are needed.

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