SINTEGRA: RN

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

Annotations already mark idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds that no-arg calls return a link, token calls enable session-only login, and config-based header provides permanent access. It clarifies behavioral traits like token handling and session scope without contradicting 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 moderately sized and front-loaded with purpose. It uses structured formatting ('Best:' and 'Or') to organize permanent vs session-only options, and every sentence adds necessary information about the authentication flow.

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 parameter and no output schema, it explains both invocation modes and their outcomes (link vs session). It does not specify the exact return payload on success, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to call 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 schema only has an optional 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the token as '<jwt>' to paste for session login, and also explains the no-args alternative to obtain a link, thus covering the parameter's meaning and usage.

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 explicitly states the tool is for authentication with 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It clearly identifies the action and the resource (IDE agents), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on the login/token 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?

It provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header ... for permanent ... Or paste it here for session-only login' and 'call with no args to get the link.' This gives clear guidance on when to use each invocation mode, though it doesn't mention alternatives among siblings.

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 and idempotent. The description adds behavioral detail, such as returning connect_url when credentials are missing and authenticated:true when all providers are connected, which enriches transparency 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 two sentences long, concise, and well-structured. It directly conveys the tool's behavior without unnecessary verbosity.

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 covers the main outputs (authenticated status, pending list, connect URLs) but does not explicitly mention error scenarios or other edge cases. It is sufficiently complete for typical use, though additional detail on failure modes could enhance completeness.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there are none; baseline score of 3 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 returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. It specifies the exact outputs under different conditions, making its 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 usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, though its behavior is described.

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 far exceeds the annotations' disclosure. It reveals auth-required behavior ('if the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link'), payment edge cases ('if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link'), permission requirements ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'), and side effects (invoke runs 'without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'). No contradiction with annotations exists — description's write-oriented behavior is consistent with readOnlyHint: false.

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?

It's a wall of text with no bullet points or headers, yet nearly every sentence earns its place — there's almost no filler. The 'KEY:' marker provides a useful emphasis in an otherwise flat structure. The density is justified given the tool covers 14 actions and two distinct subsystems (MCP catalog + prompt library), but it would benefit from paragraph breaks or bullet lists for scannability.

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, 14-action dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers an impressive amount: the core flow, install-vs-invoke distinction, auth and payment edge cases, prompt library, permission model, and the role of every sibling-worthy action (report_bug, request_mcp, list_tools). Minor omissions: no error-handling guidance (e.g., invalid tool_id, network failures) or rate-limit expectations, and the installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags are mentioned but not explained. Still, this is near-complete coverage for an exceptionally complex 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 0% schema coverage and 23 parameters, the description carries the full semantic burden. It does explain the action enum thoroughly in prose (each of the 14 values gets contextual meaning), which is the most important parameter. However, concepts like arguments, prompt_vars, conversation, tool_id, and mcp_id are never explicitly mapped to the actions that need them — it's inferred. The prompt library parameter names (prompt_title, prompt_body, prompt_slug) are guessable but undocumented. The description earns a solid middle score for nailing the action parameter but leaving the remaining 19 parameters 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 opens with a clear definition: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It uses specific verbs (search, describe, invoke, install) and explains the action-dispatch pattern. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly scoping what each action family does and names the distinguishing behavior 'KEY: invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed' — the kind of detail that sets it apart.

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 guidance is exemplary: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' provides an explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-avoid directive. It also names alternatives for sibling tools ('list_tools lists what is callable right now', 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits') and describes the decision flow: search → describe → invoke/install.

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 indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context—such as what happens after reporting (e.g., sent to developers, stored in a system) or whether any side effects occur beyond the action. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still lacks useful 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds the key usage tip about including conversation data. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately brief for a simple reporting 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and one essential usage hint. However, it omits the meaning of the 'context' parameter and does not clarify the format of the 'conversation' string, leaving some gaps. It is minimally adequate 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only mentions the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array...') and implicitly the 'message' as the content of the report, but the 'context' parameter is entirely unaddressed. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version. The verb 'report' combined with the resource 'bug/feature/feedback' is specific enough, though it could be more precise about the exact channel or 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (for reporting issues) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction' is a usage hint but not a full guideline on when to choose this over other 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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety traits. The description adds specific context about what 'show' means (platform and adapter versions), which goes slightly beyond 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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' Every word earns its place, with no filler 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope. There is nothing more an agent needs to know 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?

The tool has 0 parametersanding the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate given there are none.

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, using a specific verb (show) and resource (versions). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and report_bug, 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 implies usage when you need version information. It provides clear context (checking platform/adapter versions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like toolkit_info, which may also provide version 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds behavioral context: the tool is hosted, requires payment per query, and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This enhances transparency about side effects (cost) and data handling.

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 includes necessary functional information but also verbose legal disclaimers (LGPD, data control). It is not excessively long, but the legal content could be condensed to improve focus on the tool's 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?

The description provides some context: it is a query, requires payment, and involves public data. However, it omits output format, error handling, and parameter usage details, leaving the tool's full behavior under-specified. Given the sparse schema, the description does not fill the 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 schema lists three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no explanation of these fields. Users cannot determine their meaning, format, or which are mutually exclusive, making the parameters effectively undocumented.

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 performs a query against the official SINTEGRA RN source, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authentication or marketplace. However, it does not explicitly define what SINTEGRA RN is, which could reduce clarity for unfamiliar users.

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 practical usage notes such as requiring prepaid credit and not needing platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for legitimate queries but lacks clear selection 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 already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description does not repeat that. It adds value by specifying the exact content returned (state components). No contradictions. The description complements annotations without redundancy.

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 action ('Returns'), and every clause contributes meaning. No filler or redundant wording.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns, covering all relevant aspects of the toolkit state. There is no missing information for an agent to 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 parametersaca, so the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings. Per rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no param info but also does not need to.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like 'connect' (action) and 'show_version' (version only).

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 for retrieving status information, which is clear in context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or versus other tools. Despite no explicit exclusions, the purpose is unambiguous, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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