TCU Consolidada PJ

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as permanent vs. session-only behavior and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict the idempotentHint annotation and clarifies what the tool does with a token.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose then explaining options. Every sentence adds actionable information without unnecessary fluff, though it is longer than typical descriptions.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers permanent setup, session-only login, token argument, and no-argument behavior. It leaves out only minor details like exact response format, but that is not critical.

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 one optional string token with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT pasted by the user and that omitting it will produce a link, 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: authenticating the user for IDE agents. It specifies the action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and differentiates from siblings 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?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios: permanent configuration via Authorization header vs. session-only login by pasting a token. It also explains how to invoke with a token argument or with no arguments to get a link. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, it gives clear contextual guidance.

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 mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it explains the response conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing), which goes well 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise condition-specific details. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 two main cases (all connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions key return fields, which is good for a simple no-parameter tool without an output schema. However, it leaves some ambiguity about partial connection states (some providers connected, some not), so it's 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 tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline for 0 params, the description doesn't need to explain parameter specifics. It adds no parameter information, but none is required given the empty 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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the conditional explanations (authenticated:true vs connect_url) distinguish it from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info.

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—to check connection status and obtain URLs—and provides context about the two outcome states. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the explicit guidance needed for 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 goes far beyond annotations by disclosing behavior: invoke runs tools one-off even if not installed, may return a connect link for credentials or a checkout link for payment, and writes require workspace owner/admin. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description aligns with these, showing it is a mutating, non-idempotent tool. No contradictions found.

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 long, dense paragraph but front-loaded with the main purpose and flows logically from core marketplace actions to prompt library. Every sentence adds value, though a bulleted or more structured format could improve readability. Still, it earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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 23 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations (openWorldHint, non-read-only), the description covers the essential behavioral contexts: the search→describe→invoke flow, permission requirements, payment/auth handling, the distinction between one-off invoke and permanent install, and the prompt library. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and how to call the 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 description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the core action values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, unsubscribe, etc.), the meaning of mcp_id/tool_id/arguments, and prompt-related parameters (search_prompts, get_prompt with {{variables}}, publish_prompt). It effectively maps the abstract parameter list to real usage scenarios.

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 it is the official marketplace for MCPs/tools with a specific role: 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It explicitly enumerates distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and even contrasts invoke vs install, making it distinguishable from any 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use which action: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and describes when to use list_tools, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library. It also clarifies when invoke returns connect/checkout links and that admin rights are needed for writes.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the conversation array being for reproduction, which goes beyond the schema and annotations. However, it does not detail side effects or what happens after reporting.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences, about 20 words, with the purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the instruction about the conversation array is efficiently integrated.

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 no output schema and only three parameters, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and the most important parameter (conversation). The only missing piece is the context parameter and explicit mention of what response to expect, but the tool's simplicity lowers the burden.

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 must compensate. It clearly explains the conversation parameter ('include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') and implicitly covers message as the report content. The context parameter remains unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap. This partial coverage merits a midpoint score.

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 with specific verbs ('report', 'send feedback') and a resource ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'). It strongly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version, which serve entirely different functions.

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: use this tool for reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. It implicitly instructs when to use it but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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 safety. The description adds value by specifying what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No additional side effects are disclosed, but none are expected for a read-only version query.

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 immediately states the tool's function. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool, the description is complete. It accurately describes the tool's behavior and return value focus (versions). No further details are necessary for an agent to correctly invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema burden. The description mentions the information returned (platform and adapter versions), which is relevant context. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to explain 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 the tool's purpose: "Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions." It uses a specific verb ("Show") and identifies the resource (versions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve different functions.

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 version information is needed but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool. There are no alternatives mentioned, nor exclusions or prerequisites. Given the simple nature of the tool, the context is clear enough, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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?

As anotações já declaram readOnlyHint=true e destructiveHint=false. A descrição adiciona contexto relevante além dessas anotações: custo por consulta, ausência de credenciais, acesso público e responsabilidade LGPD — comportamentos importantes para o agente.

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?

O texto é uma frase inicial direta seguida de contexto operacional e legal. Cada frase contribui, mas a parte sobre LGPD poderia ser mais enxuta. Ainda assim, é conciso e bem estruturado.

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?

A descrição cobre o objetivo, o custo, a autenticação e a natureza pública dos dados. Porém, não esclarece o significado de 'completo', o formato do CNPJ ou o formato de resposta/erros — lacunas relevantes para uma ferramenta sem 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?

A cobertura do schema é 0% e a descrição não explica o parâmetro obrigatório 'Cnpj' além de mencioná-lo no texto, nem o opcional 'completo'. A descrição não compensa a falta de documentação dos parâmetros.

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?

A descrição afirma claramente o propósito: 'Consulta consolidada de uma empresa no TCU a partir do CNPJ, reunindo sanções e apontamentos'. Há verbo específico, recurso definido e conteúdo esperado, distinguindo-se dos irmãos de autenticação/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?

Fornece contexto de uso: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'. Não há exclusões explícitas nem alternativas nomeadas, mas o contexto é claro o suficiente para um agente decidir quando usar.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral details by listing the exact output components (MCPs, statuses, connected accounts, catalog counts). This goes beyond mere safety semantics, offering a picture of what the caller will receive. 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 a single sentence that is direct and information-dense. Every clause adds meaningful content and there is no redundancy or wordiness. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action 'Returns the current toolkit state' followed by specifics.

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 info tool without an output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does list the main components of the return (installations, statuses, accounts, counts), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It doesn't specify the exact data structure or pagination/error behavior, but for the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 and the description has no parameter semantics to explain. It correctly omits any param details because there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so no additional value needed.

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 it 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 clear context of what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like show_version or market_state. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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