Remover Fundo

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, and the description appropriately describes a state-changing auth operation without contradiction. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on authentication failure, whether sessions persist across restarts, or any rate-limiting behavior with the config header approach.

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 packs substantial guidance into one dense paragraph that includes a colon, parentheses, and multiple clauses. It's slightly long but every piece serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with a clear action verb.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential flows comprehensively. It explains both config-based permanent auth and session-based token auth, though it could have briefly noted the response behavior.

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 there's only one optional parameter, but the description thoroughly explains the token parameter's purpose, format ('<jwt>'), and usage context. The description provides more than enough compensation for the sparse 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 explains the authentication flow with specific actions ('log in in the browser', 'copy the access token') and distinguishes between permanent config-based auth and session-only token auth. 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for authenticating in IDE agents like Cursor) and how to use it in different modes (with token, no args). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tools (connect, marketplace, etc.) are clearly distinct contexts, and the tool's purpose is well-scoped.

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, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about output formats (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url) and the conditional nature of results, enriching beyond the 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then detailing output behavior. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema info. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns, under what conditions, and the exact fields. The low complexity means no further elaboration is required, and the description is complete for its 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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter explanation is needed, and the description doesn't attempt to add unnecessary detail.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the exact output conditions (authenticated:true when all connected, connect_url when missing) and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication actions.

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 context on output variations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it's for checking connection status, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are given. Sibling tools like authenticate are present, but no guidance on choosing between them.

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 discloses non-obvious behaviors: invoke runs tools even when MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links on auth/payment failures, and installs permanently only on explicit action. It also states permission requirements for write actions. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) without contradiction, and provides the agent with actionable behavioral details.

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

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

The description is long but structured logically: it opens with a clear one-line definition, then details the core flow, then covers edge cases (auth/payment), permissions, and finally the prompt library. Each section adds necessary information, and the language is efficient despite the breadth. It could be tighter by splitting into paragraphs for readability, but it remains effective.

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, 14 actions, no output schema, and complex inter-relations, the description covers the essential flows (search→describe→invoke, install vs invoke, prompt library), permission rules, and failure handling. It does not enumerate every parameter, but the description provides enough to correctly use the tool for common scenarios, making it complete for its 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the critical 'action' parameter and its enum values, and clarifies the roles of mcp_id and tool_id in the search/describe/invoke flow. It does not detail every parameter (e.g., limit, prompt_*), but the central action parameter is well covered, and the overall flow makes the purpose of most parameters inferable. This is strong compensation given the tool's complexity, though not exhaustive.

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 the official MCP marketplace and enumerates its core actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts). It specifies the resource (MCP/tool catalog) and the verb (marketplace operations), and distinguishes it from siblings like report_bug by explaining that this tool also contains a report_bug action, covering the same functionality but as part of a larger 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for single/occasional use, install for permanent additions, and explains the flow from search to describe to invoke. It also notes that writes require owner/admin permissions and describes the retry flow for connect/checkout. These are clear alternatives and prerequisites, exceeding a simple usage statement.

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

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

Annotations provide no behavior hints (all false). The description adds behavioral details: it takes a few seconds, processes one file per call, and saves the result in the Files tab, which goes beyond the basic read/write 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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action. It presents the output, optional modifications, timing, and limit in a logical flow without unnecessary fluff.

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

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

It covers the core functionality, expected output, storage location, optional features, and operational constraints (time and file limit). This is sufficient for an LLM to understand when and how to 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?

The description explains the `background` and `max_width` parameters and notes the default format (PNG). The `image_url` is self-explanatory, and the `format` enum is partially covered. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though not all enumeration values are specified.

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: removing the background from an image given by URL, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, which are unrelated.

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 context by specifying the input (image URL), output (download link, saved in Files tab), and optional parameters (background color, max_width). Though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, there are no competing image-processing tools among the siblings, so the guidance 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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating safety profile is already covered. The description adds a hint about including conversation for reproduction, but does not disclose any side effects like ticket creation, notification, or persistence. It offers some extra context beyond annotations but not substantial behavioral detail.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a single critical usage hint. Zero wasted words; all content 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 simple 3-parameter reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the action and a key parameter hint. It lacks an explanation of what happens after submission or how feedback is processed, but given low complexity and annotations covering safety, it is mostly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter (include recent messages for reproduction), which adds value. However, it says nothing about 'message' or 'context', leaving most parameters explained only by their names and defaults. Partial compensation.

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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It only suggests including the conversation array for reproduction, which is parameter guidance rather than usage context. No mention of when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format or runtime effects, but it also does not contradict 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 text. 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?

This is a very simple read-only tool with no parameters, strong annotations, and a description that fully explains its output. No further context is needed for the 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 has zero parameters, so parameter-level documentation is not needed. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description adequately reflects that invoking the tool requires no 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 specific verb and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like authenticate or removebg_remove, and matches the tool name directly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info. The description states what the tool does but provides no context, exclusions, or recommended use 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing valuable context. No contradictions found.

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, tightly worded sentence that directly states the output. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with 'Returns' and immediately lists the key deliverables.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description provides a complete picture. It explains the exact nature of the returned state, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. No further elaboration is necessary.

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. The description doesn't need to add parameter details because there are none. The schema is empty and the description complements it perfectly by explaining what the call will return.

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 the current toolkit state with specific content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'marketplace' which have narrower scopes.

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 use this tool (to inspect overall toolkit state), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. Since the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, the lack of explicit 'use instead of X' is acceptable.

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