Certidão STM (Justiça Militar)

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: the config header yields a permanent non-expiring connection, while pasting the token gives session-only access, and calling with no args returns the login link. This goes 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?

Three sentences convey the complete authentication flow without redundancy. While slightly long, each sentence adds necessary information about modes, token handling, and behavior. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers the main behaviors: retrieving a link with no args and using a JWT for session login. It doesn't detail success/error responses for token submission or token expiration, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple 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?

The schema's single optional 'token' parameter has no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT provided by the user and that omitting it retrieves the login link. This makes the parameter semantics clear and complete.

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 for MCP.AI via browser login, offering two methods (permanent header config or session token). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by detailing the specific authentication workflow for IDE agents.

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 clear usage context: for IDE agents, with two explicit modes (permanent config via Authorization header vs session-only token paste) and instructions for calling with or without the token. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternative 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral specifics beyond annotations: it details the exact return values in two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected; connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing). No contradiction with 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, tightly written, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence conveys the main action, and the second clarifies conditional output without redundant 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?

For a simple, parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the two primary states (all connected, missing credentials). However, it omits partial-connection scenarios, which might be realistic but are not critical for this tool's core function.

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 already covers everything (100% coverage). The description correctly omits parameter details and instead explains the output behavior based on connection state, which is appropriate 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 clearly states the primary function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies conditions for different outputs (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), making it distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' which performs the connection action.

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 for when this tool is appropriate: to check connection status and obtain URLs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a status-checking tool.

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 not captured in annotations: invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and write actions require workspace owner/admin. Also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. Annotations only say openWorldHint, so this adds substantial context.

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 covering many flows; while information-rich, it would benefit from structuring (e.g., bullets) and removes the Portuguese 'pontualmente' which could confuse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes a wall of text.

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 23 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases (search/describe/invoke, install/uninstall/subscribe, prompt library) and edge cases (connect link, checkout link, permissions). However, some actions like 'resume' are not mentioned, and there's no detailed return value documentation beyond the link behaviors.

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 explains the primary action parameter and core workflow parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) but leaves many parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_targets, etc.) unexplained. It covers prompt-related fields but not all, so it only partially compensates for the missing 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 defines marketplace as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution platform, with a detailed core flow (search→describe→invoke). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the full lifecycle of finding, running, and managing MCPs plus the prompt library.

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 distinguishes when to use invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. Provides a core flow with action values and explains credential/payment handling with retry instructions.

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=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context of including conversation data, but doesn't disclose what happens after reporting or any side effects. This is moderate value 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose directly, and the second provides a key usage hint. No redundant words or repetition of schema 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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits essential parameter semantics (message, context) and doesn't mention expected outcomes or response behavior. Given zero schema descriptions and no output schema, this is under-specified for a confident, 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the 'conversation' parameter. It fails to describe the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter, leaving uncertainty about their format and purpose.

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—a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, which have unrelated 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?

It provides explicit guidance to include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction, indicating how to use the tool effectively. It doesn't mention exclusions, but no alternative sibling tool exists for this function.

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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the 'current' qualifier, implying a read of live state, which is minor extra context. It does not disclose return format or any side effects, but for a version info tool, the bar is lower given 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. Every word contributes meaning: 'Show', 'current', 'MCP platform and adapter versions'.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, clear purpose), the one-sentence description is fully adequate. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and annotations cover safety. No additional context 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, which earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and the schema confirms empty properties.

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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticate or report_bug, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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: when current platform/adapter versions are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no confusion arises given the simplicity of the tool.

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 context about the paid nature, public data source, and LGPD responsibilities. It does not contradict annotations and increases transparency about the operation's non-mutating character.

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 front-loads the purpose, then adds essential operational details (hosting, payment, legal framework). No redundant sentences, though the LGPD disclaimer could be seen as extra length.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, required inputs, data source, access level, and legal responsibility. It lacks output format description and error handling, but these are less critical given the annotations and simple parameters.

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. It names the four required parameters (nome, CPF, data de nascimento, nome da mãe) but does not explain the optional 'completo' boolean or date formatting. This partial coverage leaves some ambiguity.

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: 'Emite a certidão negativa do Superior Tribunal Militar (STM)' with specific inputs (name, CPF, birth date, mother's name). It is highly specific and distinguishes 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?

Provides clear context: hosted by the platform, no credentials, prepaid credit, and public access data. This clarifies when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, so no conflicting guidance needed.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or potential latency. This is consistent with the mid-tier example where annotations carry the safety burden.

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 primary action ('Returns') and efficiently lists the returned components without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, covering all mentioned aspects of the toolkit state. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output without additional clarification.

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%, meaning the schema fully documents the empty input. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there is nothing to add. Baseline for 0 params 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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 implicitly signals usage when one needs an overview of the toolkit's connections and tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version or marketplace. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage guidance remains implied.

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