SINTEGRA: DF

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about session vs permanent connections and the mechanics of token delivery. It does not contradict annotations and discloses state-changing aspects (session login) beyond the structured data.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the target audience. It packs a lot of essential information without wasted words, though it could be slightly more succinct by separating the config recommendation from the tool invocation details.

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 no output schema and multiple authentication paths, the description covers the main flows: permanent config, session token, and link retrieval. It does not cover error cases or post-authentication state, but it is reasonably complete for an auth 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 has one optional string 'token' with 0% coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining the token is a JWT for session-only login and that omitting it yields the login link. This adds meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 authenticates IDE agents by logging in the browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on authentication flow and token handling.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, pasting a session token, or calling with no args to get a login link. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and even explains the recommended approach over 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 already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining the conditional return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials are missing), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 main purpose, and no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with strong annotations, the description covers the main return cases and URL behavior. It does not explicitly describe partial-connection states, but the mention of pending[] implies that scenario, so the description is largely 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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional behavior for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate', which would perform authentication rather than report status.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to check connection status and get URLs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like authenticate or 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?

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that invoke runs MCPs temporarily without bloating the toolkit, that it may return connect/checkout links requiring user action, and that writes require permissions. It also notes that search/describe flag installed status. Slight gap: does not disclose that actions can have side effects beyond writes (e.g., subscribe/cancel) and lacks explicit rate limits/timeouts.

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 paragraph with no headers or bullet points, mixing multiple concepts (MCP marketplace, prompt library, billing, permissions) and detailed flow explanations. While it is information-rich, it is not front-loaded or scannable; it takes repeated reading to extract key rules. It could be split into sections (e.g., Overview, Key Actions, Permissions, Prompts) for better usability.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core flow, key actions, triggered links, permissions, and the prompt library with enough detail for an agent to select and invoke actions correctly. It also addresses when to prefer invoke over install and mentions the prompt library's purpose, which is essential for this multifaceted 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?

With schema_description_coverage=0% and 23 parameters all optional, the description must compensate. It explains the roles of key parameters implicitly (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_* fields) by describing the flow (search, describe, invoke, prompt library), but does not map each parameter to its specific usage. Yet the enumeration of actions and narrative helps agents infer parameter meanings, providing above-baseline 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 that this tool is the official marketplace for discovering, describing, invoking, and managing MCPs, as well as a prompt library. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the central hub for MCP discovery and execution, but the broad scope (14 actions) makes the primary purpose diffuse; a clearer 'verb+resource' would be 'access the marketplace to search, describe, invoke, and manage MCPs and prompts'.

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 when to use each action: use 'invoke' for one-off runs even if not installed, use 'install' for permanent addition, and mentions capabilities like searching, describing, and billing. It also provides clear alternatives to siblings (e.g., 'report_bug' for feedback, 'request_mcp' for building new ones) and specifies that writes require workspace owner/admin permissions.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting the safety profile. The description adds that data (conversation) should be included 'for reproduction,' implying the report is sent externally, but doesn't elaborate on destination, rate limits, or side effects. It doesn't contradict the annotations, but also doesn't add substantial behavioral depth beyond what the annotations already imply.

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 immediately states the purpose and then gives a concrete, actionable instruction. There is no redundancy or filler—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 simple reporting tool with only three parameters and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose and the most non-obvious parameter (conversation). It could mention what happens after submission (e.g., a ticket is created), but given the simplicity, the current level is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'conversation array' for reproduction, leaving 'message' (the required parameter) and 'context' completely undocumented. The agent can guess from names, but the description doesn't add enough value above that.

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 'Report' and names three explicit targets (bug, missing feature, feedback), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. It's immediately obvious what this tool does and when to use it.

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 clearly indicates when to use it ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and provides a concrete tip about including the conversation array. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already specify (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary details.

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, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (version information). It is complete for the intended query.

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?

There are no parameters to describe, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or 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?

The intended use is implicit—when version information is needed—but no explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds context that it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit, and is non-sensitive official data. However, it lacks detail on rate limits, response format, or any authentication nuances beyond the mention of no platform credentials.

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 a single block providing key information (source, payment, data nature, LGPD). It is front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. No redundancy, but it could be more structured with bullets for 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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema) and reasonable annotations, the description covers essential operational context (hosting, payment, legal responsibility). However, it lacks details on typical usage scenarios and what exactly the response contains, leaving some gaps for a complex data source.

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. The parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) are names that suggest taxpayer identifiers, but the description does not explain their roles, formats, or mutual exclusivity. It mentions the federal context implicitly but doesn't clarify which identifier is needed or how they interact.

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 it consults official Brazilian sources (SINTEGRA DF) but the verb 'consulta' and resource are somewhat vague. It doesn't mention what kind of data is returned (e.g., taxpayer registration status), making it less specific. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the SINTEGRA DF source, but the purpose could be more precise.

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 when not to use it, prerequisites, or which parameters are expected (IE, CPF, CNPJ) for typical use. It does mention payment needs but not usage context.

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 fully covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the specific data returned. Every word earns its place with 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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns, and no output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, which it does effectively.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return content rather than 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 returns the current toolkit state, listing specific content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or 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?

The description implies this is a read-only informational tool for checking the toolkit's current state, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from sibling tools.

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