SINTEGRA: GO

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and is idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the differentiation between permanent (config header) and session-only (token) login, and that calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's side effects and state changes.

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 that is reasonably concise. It front-loads the audience ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and then provides sequential instructions. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be broken into bullets for clarity; still, it's far from verbose.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to use it, and the two modes. It lacks a description of the return value when a token is passed, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is not a major gap. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, describes the no-args behavior (returns link), and clarifies the context of both invocations. This is complete and adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate the user via browser login and token handling. It specifies the two methods (permanent config vs session token) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on authentication, though it doesn't explicitly compare to 'connect'. The verb 'authenticate' and resource context are clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: for permanent connections, add the token to config; for session-only, pass the token. It also instructs to call with no args to receive the link. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or distinguish it from sibling 'connect', so it falls short of a 5.

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 the nature of the output (status, URLs, pending list) and implies read-only behavior, consistent with annotations. However, it does not detail error handling or side effects beyond the success/failure cases mentioned.

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, concise, and to the point, providing necessary information 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?

The description gives sufficient context about the tool's purpose and output, including specific fields like authenticated and pending, which is adequate given the absence of an output schema.

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 adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not conflict with any parameter 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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking 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 conditional guidance on when the tool is used (when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing), but does not explicitly contrast with 'authenticate' or other 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?

Discloses key behaviors: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke works without installation, returns connect links for missing credentials, and billing flows. This aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation and provides useful context beyond the annotation.

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 highly repetitive, repeating the same explanations multiple times (e.g., the entire paragraph is duplicated). This violates conciseness and makes it difficult to parse. A single, structured overview would suffice.

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 covering many aspects, the description omits detailed parameter descriptions and does not explain the output or return values. Given the complexity of the tool (multiple actions, many parameters), this is incomplete and would leave an agent uncertain about how to use specific fields.

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 23 parameters with zero description coverage; the description mentions a few (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, immediate, etc.) but does not explain each. For a tool with this many parameters, the description should provide per-parameter guidance, which is lacking.

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 indicates this tool is for interacting with the MCP marketplace, covering actions like search, install, and invoke. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on marketplace operations, though it is verbose and repetitive.

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 some guidance on when to use install vs invoke (e.g., 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use') and mentions admin requirements for writes. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools like authenticate or connect, and the repetitive structure makes the guidance hard to follow.

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 readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. However, beyond the purpose, the description adds only the note about including the conversation for reproduction, which is more of a usage hint than a behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the report is sent, stored, triggers notifications, or requires authentication, leaving the agent without insight into side effects or 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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and quickly provides a usage hint. While it is short, this is not a case of over-condensation; the brevity is appropriate given the tool's simplicity, though it could be 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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (if any), fully describe parameter usage, or provide clarity on the expected behavior. The presence of basic annotations does not compensate for the lack of details about how the tool interacts with the system. It is a minimally functional description but not complete enough for an agent to confidently use it.

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 is responsible for explaining all parameters. It only mentions the conversation parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'), implying it is for reproduction, but does not clarify the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter. The meaning of 'message' must be inferred from the tool purpose, and 'context' is left entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the listed siblings, none of which relate to reporting issues. The purpose is unambiguous and covers the expected use cases.

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

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

The description gives a partial usage guideline by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction, which indicates when this tool is appropriate (for issues that need reproduction steps). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus any alternatives, nor does it list any prerequisites or exclusions. It provides context but not a full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use explanation.

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, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds that it shows 'current' versions, which is minor scoping context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or potential side effects.

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, direct, and free of filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers the essential purpose. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the description clearly states what information (platform and adapter versions) will be shown.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by clarifying the exact kind of version information that will be returned, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 clear verb ('Show') and specifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes this from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by naming the specific version-related output scope.

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' or 'marketplace'. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.

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. The description adds valuable behavioral context: payment requirement, hosting details, absence of platform credentials, and legal responsibilities (LGPD). It does not contradict annotations and enriches the safety profile with pricing and data sensitivity notes.

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 but packed with useful information, including purpose, payment, and legal context. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the main action. Slightly dense, but acceptable given the amount of context it conveys.

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 has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions. The description covers high-level aspects (source, payment, legality) but omits crucial details like how to construct a query, which parameter to use, or what the response looks like. The agent would be under-informed 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 input schema lists three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what each parameter represents or when to use them. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but completely 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 clearly states the tool performs a query ('consulta') against official Brazilian sources (SINTEGRA GO). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, which are unrelated platform actions. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about the exact data returned.

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 usage context: querying official sources, hosted by the platform, no platform credentials required, and pay-per-query with prepaid credit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific context about what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) without contradicting the annotations. It provides detail beyond the safety hints, which is useful but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of potential latency or auth requirements). However, given it's a read-only info tool, the description suffices.

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

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

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the return value and enumerates key elements. Every word earns its place with zero fluff. The information is front-loaded with 'Returns the current toolkit state'.

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 info tool with full annotation coverage (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully explains what the tool returns. No output schema, but the return content is specified clearly enough for an agent to understand and use. Nothing missing.

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 zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description explains what the output contains, which is the full value since there's no input schema 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource 'current toolkit state' with detailed content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' (version info) and 'connect' (establishing connections).

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

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

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to know the current toolkit state, connections, or capabilities. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the distinct purpose from siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace) makes usage context clear. Slight deduction for no explicit when-not guidance.

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