Rede

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context about the two authentication paths and that calling with no args returns a login link, which is useful behavioral detail. Lacks explicit mention of side effects (e.g., storing token) but annotations cover safety.

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 pack substantial detail, but the structure is a bit dense. It front-loads the core action and then explains modes. No redundancy, but could be tightened.

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 one optional parameterفق, the description fully covers the usage scenarios . The output is a link or session token, which is implied. No further context needed.

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

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

The schema provides no description coverage, but the description explains the token parameter clearly: it is the JWT to be passed for session-only login, and its absence triggers a link retrieval. This fully compensates for schema gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI via browser login and token. It distinguishes the two operational modes (config header vs. session token), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like '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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: recommends adding token to config for permanent connection, and describes the alternative session-based flow with or without a token argument. Clearly explains when to use each mode, effectively guiding agent decisions.

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 meaningful conditional behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that when credentials are missing, connect_url and per-install URLs are returned, and that a fully connected state returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds specific behavioral information. 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?

For a parameterless, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the return behavior and conditional cases. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining both connected and missing-credential states.

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 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and further distinguishes itself by naming exact conditional outputs like authenticated:true and connect_url. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as authenticate 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 implies usage as a status-checking tool by explaining what it returns in different connection states. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like authenticate, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that it returns profile and POS data, which is content but not behavioral depth. It does not describe potential errors, auth requirements, or response format, but given the annotations, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

A single, concise, front-loaded sentence clearly identifies what the tool returns. 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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately explains the returned data (profile and points of sale). It lacks details about pagination or exact structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description accurately reflects that no parameters are needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is warranted for 0 parameters since there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 provides account data from Portal Rede, specifically profile and point(s) of sale. It distinguishes from siblings (extrato, vendas, etc.) by focusing on account profile and POS data, though it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives.

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 account data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like rede_extrato or rede_vendas_listar. No exclusions are given, but the context strongly suggests a read operation for account details.

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, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the content of the statement (movements, payments, adjustments, debits, chargebacks), which is not covered by annotations. It provides useful context about what the tool retrieves, though it does not discuss rate limits or specific authentication nuances (likely implied 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Extrato financeiro') and scopes it to the account and period. It avoids redundancy and every word contributes meaning, making it highly 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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more detailed about the response format. It lists the types of transactions included, giving some indication of content, but does not describe the structure of the returned statement (e.g., fields, pagination, currency). For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'no período' (in the period) without explaining the exact usage or format of start_date and end_date. It does not clarify whether dates are required, their format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), or what happens if only one is provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics vague.

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 a financial statement ('Extrato financeiro') for the Rede account within a specified period, listing specific transaction types (movements, payments, adjustments, debits, chargebacks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rede_vendas_listar' (sales) and 'rede_recebiveis_agenda' (receivables schedule), 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 implies it is used to obtain account statements but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for use. It does not provide 'when/when-not' guidance relative to siblings, though the purpose is clear enough that agents can infer it for financial reporting. But without explicit alternatives or exclusions, it falls short of a 4.

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 context about the available views and the meaning of receivables, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as default view, date range handling, or output format, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core concept and contains no filler. Each phrase adds meaningful context, including the period, the meaning of receivables, and view options.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and view options. Minor gaps remain, such as specifying the default view or date range behavior, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references the date period ('no período') and view ('visão'), and it lists the enum values (resumo, calendário, diário), matching the schema. However, it does not explicitly map the parameters (visao, start_date, end_date) or explain their formats or defaults, 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 identifies the tool as Rede's receivables schedule ('Agenda de recebíveis da Rede no período') and explains its purpose: showing when each sale lands in the account. It also distinguishes it from siblings by adding view options (summary, calendar, daily), which is not covered by other listed 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 provides a clear usage context: use this to see the receivables schedule for a period, specifically when sales are credited. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it over related 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 covered. The description adds useful context about the internal Portal Rede API and the included payment types, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any auth requirements.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and context. Every phrase contributes meaningful information without 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no property descriptions, the description provides the minimum viable context but leaves gaps: pagination semantics, date formatting, optional parameter behavior, and return value structure are not addressed.

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 partially compensates by linking 'por período' to start_date/end_date and mentioning status and value fields. However, it does not explain page/size semantics, date formats, allowed status values, or the fact that all parameters are optional.

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 the specific verb 'Lista', identifies the resource as 'vendas/transações da conta Rede', and clearly scopes it by period, payment methods, and fields. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like rede_extrato and rede_recebiveis_agenda by focusing on sales/transaction listing.

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 intended use is implied: list Rede sales/transactions by period. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, mention prerequisites like authentication, or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, tracking ID) or any side effects. Since annotations already cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a key usage hint (conversation array) without unnecessary fluff. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter guidance.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter, the expected format of 'conversation' (string vs array), or what happens after reporting. For a feedback tool, it should clarify submission behavior and parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'conversation array' but the schema defines 'conversation' as a string (likely JSON), not an array. It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or the format of 'message'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter formats and 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug/missing feature/feedback'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user feedback rather than account operations or version info. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it's not a 5.

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

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

The description implies when to use this tool (when reporting bugs or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a hint about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds that it shows both 'MCP platform' and 'adapter' versions, which is useful specificity, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral characteristics such as output format, latency, or error conditions. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler, redundancies, or background. It is appropriately concise for a simple version-check 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?

For a tool of this low complexity, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It specifies both platform and adapter versions, which implies the return will include both. There is no output schema, so the description could theoretically explain the return format more fully, but given the trivial nature of a version display, this is sufficient. The strong annotations compensate for any minor 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details, adding no unnecessary 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 uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, redeem, or reporting tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: call it to view platform and adapter versions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., for debugging version mismatches) nor mention any alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool overlaps with version display, the context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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 established. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the bare annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and enumerates key result components efficiently.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is comprehensive. It specifies the exact nature of the returned information, and annotations cover safety aspects. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the agent can 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?

With zero parameters, the schema carries no burden, and the description needs no parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't add or need any parameter info, so it fully meets the requirement.

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 clearly defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version and authenticate, which serve different 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?

The description provides clear context (inspecting toolkit state) without explicit alternatives or exclusions. While it doesn't name sibling tools or when to use it vs. them, the intent is unambiguous, and it's likely the go-to for state inspection.

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