SENATRAN: Download Infração

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds context about non-expiring config and session-only login. It implies a browser interaction and link generation, adding value 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 a single paragraph but well-structured with 'Best:' and 'Or' to separate options. It's slightly verbose but every sentence carries essential information, keeping it front-loaded with the core 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 simple auth tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the main flows, prerequisites, and parameter usage. It's sufficient for the agent to operate correctly, though it doesn't describe response details or error handling.

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

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

The schema has no description for 'token' (0% coverage), but the description clarifies that token is a JWT and optional (call with or without it). This compensates for the schema gap, providing the needed meaning.

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: authenticate to MCP.AI via browser login or token paste. It specifies the exact action (log in, get link) and distinguishes from sibling tools like connect and marketplace by focusing on authentication flow.

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?

Explicitly explains two usage scenarios: permanent config header vs session-only token paste, and how to call with no args to get a link. This guides the agent on when and how to invoke the tool, though it doesn't compare to alternatives since siblings are unrelated.

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, and the description adds rich behavioral context by specifying the exact conditional outputs: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the return state without any 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information about output states. There is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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

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

This is a simple zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, and the description fully covers the relevant return scenarios: connected state and missing-credentials state. The annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are no parameters to describe.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which clearly states the tool's function. It also differentiates from siblings like authenticate by describing a read-only status check rather than an action, and it details the two output states.

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 purpose implies use when checking connection status, especially before or after authentication, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate or show_version. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is only implied.

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 key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke is one-off and does not add to the toolkit, credential/billing failures return connect/checkout links to be retried, writes require workspace owner/admin, and search/describe flag installed status. This significantly enriches the generic annotation hints.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured, with a clear core flow, key behavior, usage guidance, and prompt library section. It earns its length given the tool's complexity, though it could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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

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

For a 23-parameter tool with many actions and no output schema, the description covers the main workflows, auth, billing, and prompt library, giving an agent enough context to choose and invoke actions correctly. It omits details like the 'resume' action, exact argument formatting, and return structures, but overall it is quite 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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the action parameter's enum values and core flow (search → describe → invoke), but does not document many individual parameters like limit, arguments, immediate, prompt_vars, etc. It adds meaning for tool_id and mcp_id, but leaves other params 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's purpose: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It uses specific verbs like search, describe, invoke, and install, and distinguishes itself from siblings by covering the full catalog and execution flow.

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 explicitly lays out when to use each action: 'invoke runs that tool even when not installed... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use. Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also explains what list_tools does and when to use search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt. This provides clear context for choosing alternatives.

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

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, which aligns with the description's implication that sending a report is a one-way, non-mutating action. The description adds context by instructing to include the 'conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which is behavioral guidance beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., confirmation, asynchronous processing).

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 primary purpose. No wasted words, and it provides actionable guidance in the second sentence.

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: 3 params, no output schema, and annotations are present. The description covers the basic use case and even adds reproduction guidance. However, it could be more complete by explaining the 'context' parameter and what types of feedback are appropriate, but given the low complexity, it is minimally 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%, so the description carries full burden for explaining parameters. It mentions 'message' implicitly via 'Include the conversation array', and 'conversation' explicitly, but it doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or clarify defaults. The description adds meaning for 'conversation' but leaves 'context' unexplained, and 'message' is not directly described though it's the required 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses specific verbs ('Report', 'send') and identifies the resource (bug/missing feature/feedback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'toolkit_info' which are informational, while this is for user reporting.

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 the tool (when reporting issues or feedback), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given siblings like 'marketplace' and 'connect', the intended use is somewhat clear but could benefit from explicit guidance on what kind of messages to include.

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 include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it by stating it is a 'consulta' (query). The description adds useful behavioral context such as payment via credits and data controller responsibilities under LGPD, which goes beyond the annotations, but does not detail response behavior or rate limits.

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 paragraph that is concise and covers multiple essential points (official source, payment mechanism, data responsibility). It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and lack of annotation detail beyond readOnly/idempotent hints, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain parameter semantics, expected input formats (e.g., certificate paths), or response data. It does not fully prepare the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. Terms like 'chave_infracao', 'login_cpf', and 'pkcs12_cert' are not defined; while some are self-explanatory to domain experts, others are ambiguous. The description must compensate for the low coverage but fails to do so.

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 the tool 'Download Infração, consulta em fonte oficial' indicating a query operation for traffic infractions from official Brazilian sources. However, it does not clearly elaborate on what specific aspects of an infraction are downloaded or how it distinguishes itself from potential 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 explains that payment is via prepaid credits and that it uses official sources, giving some context on when to use it (for legitimate data consultation). It does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 description adds little beyond that. It confirms the tool is read-only and idempotent, but since annotations cover the key safety profile, the description's contribution is minimal; the description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and has zero waste. It is concise and immediately clear.

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 is simple, with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It fully explains the tool's purpose in one sentence, and the annotations cover safety aspects, so completeness is high.

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 schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter usage, so a baseline of 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 the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on version information, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'toolkit_info' which might also cover versions.

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 (when you need version info) but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use or comparison to sibling tools like 'toolkit_info'.

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 annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about the returned content, which goes beyond annotations. It does not disclose any side effects or permissions, but the annotations cover those, so the description adds value in specifying the 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that lists the returned information efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 gives sufficient information about what the tool returns. It does not include error cases or usage examples, but for a simple status tool, the description is complete enough. It could benefit from mentioning when to use it, but overall it's adequate.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema covers all (empty) parameters, and the description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate given there are none. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: returning the current toolkit state. It enumerates the specific information included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. It implies it's for checking status but lacks guidance on scenarios or alternatives. No explicit usage context is provided.

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