Consulta de Radar (PSIE/Inmetro)

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

The description discloses the persistence of the authentication (permanent vs. session), which adds behavioral context. It does not mention side effects or success/failure outcomes, but the annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, partially covering that gap.

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 rambling and mixes instructions for end-users with those for agents, making it less concise than ideal. It could be streamlined into clearer, separate usage cases, but it is not overly verbose.

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

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

The description covers the essential usage cases and the token parameter, but does not mention expected return values or error conditions. Given the simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Although the schema provides only a bare 'token' parameter with no description, the tool description explains that it accepts a JWT token and that omitting it returns a login link. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, compensating for the lack of schema 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 of authentication, explaining both permanent configuration and session-based token login. It distinguishes between two authentication methods, making it clear what the tool does, though the initial 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' phrasing is a bit 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?

It provides usage instructions for two scenarios (permanent config vs. session token) and explains how to call with or without the token parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like 'connect' or clarify when authentication is preferred over other methods.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the conditional return states and the connect_url behavior when credentials are missing, which helps the agent interpret responses.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second succinctly explains the two outcome branches. Every word 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?

For a no-parameter status tool with strong annotations, the description adequately covers both main states and the URL return behavior. It doesn't fully explain the semantics of pending[], but that's a minor gap for such a simple 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter information needed, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Returns connection status and URLs') with a specific resource, and the conditional outcomes (authenticated:true vs connect_url) distinguish it from siblings like authenticate and show_version. The verb+resource+behavior combination makes the tool's 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 gives clear context for when to call the tool by describing the two possible states (all connected vs missing credentials), which helps the agent decide to check status before authenticating. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the behavioral cues provide practical 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?

The description adds an important behavioral detail not captured by annotations: that this is a paid query ('Consulta paga (debita a carteira)'). The annotations already note read-only and idempotent, but the cost implication is a significant side effect that the description discloses, enhancing transparency.

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, composed of two sentences, and includes a clear enumeration of output fields. It is well-structured and does not waste words, though it could be streamlined by removing redundant phrasing like 'por padrão'.

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 purpose, the return data fields, and a specific use case, which is quite complete for a simple query tool. It does not mention potential errors or response formats, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it adequately informs the user about what to expect.

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 does not explain the parameters (uf, municipio, tipo). It lists output fields but gives no guidance on what values are expected for the inputs. Since the schema provides only names and types, the description fails to add meaning to the parameters, leaving them 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 clearly states that the tool lists Inmetro speed-measuring instruments for a municipality and provides their metrological status, with a specific list of attributes. This is a precise action (list) and resource (speed cameras in a municipality), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from the unrelated 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?

The description gives a concrete use case: checking whether a radar that issued a fine was approved and within validity at the date of the infraction. This effectively tells when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but given the context that is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be a non-destructive but state-changing action. The description adds that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, which is extra behavioral context. However, it does not explain what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it sends data asynchronously or returns a confirmation). With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate additional transparency, hence a score of 3.

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. It conveys the purpose and a key usage guideline without any filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, containing no unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 is simple: it has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the general purpose and one parameter, but lacks explanation of 'message' and 'context'. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least clarify expected input formats or return behavior, but it does not. The description is adequate for a basic reporting tool but incomplete regarding parameter semantics and any response/behavior beyond the annotation hints.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. The description only mentions the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array...'), but does not explain 'message' or 'context'. 'Message' is presumably the bug report text, but it is not explicitly stated. 'Context' is entirely unexplained. The description partially compensates but falls short of covering all three parameters, so it scores 2.

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.' This is a specific verb (report) with a defined resource (bug/missing feature/feedback). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are unrelated to reporting. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides a clear context: it is used to report issues or send feedback. It also gives a specific usage instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or describe alternatives, but given that none of the sibling tools are alternatives for reporting, the guidance is sufficient. It lacks a 'when-not' clause but is otherwise explicit about the 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication requirements or output format details, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only version lookup with clear annotations, this description is sufficiently complete. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap because the expected return is simply version 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the description does not need to document parameter details. The baseline for a parameter-free tool 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 a user needs version information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact behavioral output (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts) 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a precise list of returned data. No redundant words or filler.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool, the description fully explains what will be returned despite lacking an output schema. The sibling tools are all action-oriented (authenticate, connect, report_bug), making this the only status/inspection tool, so no further context is needed.

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

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

Tool has zero parameters and the schema is essentially empty (100% coverage by default). Per rubric, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter info needed since there are none.

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 specific verb 'Returns' with a concrete resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact items included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) or connect (establishing connections).

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 context by stating what it returns, making it clear this is for inspecting overall toolkit status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and matches the read-only, informational nature.

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