Tribunal TJPA: Certidão Criminal

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the behavioral distinction between permanent and session-only authentication, noting that the config header creates a non-expiring connection. It also clarifies that calling with no args returns a link. It does not mention potential side effects or error cases, but the annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 informative but slightly run-on, using 'Best:' and 'Or' to structure alternatives. All sentences are purposeful, and it is not overly long for the two distinct usage modes it explains.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the authentication workflow well, including both modes and the no-args behavior. It lacks explicit details on return values or error handling, but these are inferable from the context and the tool's simplicity.

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 provides only 'token' as a string with zero description. The description compensates fully by defining token as a JWT for session-only login and clarifying that omitting it triggers a link response. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It explicitly describes the two authentication modes and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on the login/token process.

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 guidance: for a permanent connection, add the token as a config header; for a session-only login, pass a JWT in the token parameter; or call with no args to receive the login link. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the exact response structure for different connection states, going 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, directly front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful detail without 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?

For a stateless read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the return behaviors for both connected and missing-credential cases, making it complete for an agent to understand and use.

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 and 100% schema coverage, the description has no parameter documentation to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, and clarifies behavior for both connected and missing-credential scenarios. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status 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 implies it is used to check connection status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Context is present but not explicit.

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 beyond annotations by detailing side effects: invoke works even if MCP not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and writes require admin. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and provides concrete behavioral expectations for a mutating tool.

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 lengthy, repetitive run-on paragraph with no clear structure. It reuses the same concepts multiple times (e.g., list_tools, subscribe, install) and mixes action guidance with security notes, making it hard to scan. This significantly reduces clarity despite the rich content.

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 many scenarios: core flow, one-off vs permanent usage, auth/payment edge cases, admin permissions, and the prompt library. It provides substantial context for a complex tool, though it omits details on specific parameters and some action-specific behaviors, so it is 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions a few action names without defining the specific parameters (e.g., cancel_reason, prompt_vars, arguments). The high-level narrative does not map to the actual parameter list, leaving most fields 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 clearly states the marketplace's dual purpose as a catalog of MCPs/tools and a way to run them, and it distinguishes between actions like search, describe, invoke, and install. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on discovery and execution, though the long, repetitive text somewhat buries the core 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use invoke vs install (prefer invoke for one-off, install for permanent), and when list_tools is relevant. It also mentions credential and payment handling, giving practical context. However, it does not compare directly to sibling auth/connect tools, and the guidance is scattered within a paragraph.

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 specify readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool is for reporting and includes the conversation array for reproduction, which supplements the annotations without repeating them. 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 two short sentences, immediately state the purpose and then provide a usage hint. No filler or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 params, no output schema), the description covers the core action and an important usage detail. However, it omits any mention of what happens after reporting (e.g., response, side effects), and the 'context' parameter is unexplained. It is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter usage. It mentions the conversation array for reproduction but does not explain the 'message' (though obviously the content) or the optional 'context' parameter. Only partial compensation is provided.

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's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb (report) tied to clear resource types (bug, feature, feedback), distinguishing it from 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?

The description implies usage ('send feedback') and includes a directive to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' While it does not enumerate when to use or name alternatives, the context is clear enough given the sibling 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well-established. The description adds that this covers both platform and adapter versions, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention any rate limits or side effects, but for a version display tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Direct, front-loaded single sentence. No extra information is included.

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, no-output-schema read-only tool, the description is essentially complete. It could briefly mention an output example, but the cost of that is debatable. Given its simplicity, it is complete as-is.

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 of parameters is trivially 100%. The description accurately reflects that the tool needs no input, so there is no additional parameter semantics needed. The description fully compensates for the lack of parameters by clarifying what the tool outputs.

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 is clear and specific: it tells the agent the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is a distinct purpose. It would benefit from explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like toolkit_info, but the verb+resource combination is clear enough for selection.

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: call this when you need version information. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against siblings like toolkit_info or report_bug, but given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of sibling alternatives, the implied usage is adequate though not exemplary.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is returned (connection status, accounts, etc.), providing context beyond the safety profile. No contradictions.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 (zero parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it returns and its non-destructive nature. No further details are 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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to explain, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 and lists specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like show_version by covering broader state information.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version or connect. Usage is implied—it's the obvious choice for overall status—but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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 indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds value by disclosing the payment model (prepaid credit), that no platform credentials are needed, and that the data is not confidential and the client is the LGPD data controller. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but given annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

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, around 40 words, front-loading the core purpose first. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct detail (payment, official source, LGPD responsibility), so no wasted words.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain input requirements and return value. It only states the general purpose and legal notes, leaving users unclear about which identifiers are needed (e.g., CPF vs RG) and what the result contains. This is a significant gap for a consultation 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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about what each parameter means or how to fill them. Parameter names are self-explanatory in Portuguese, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. For example, it does not clarify optional fields like rg/cpf or the relationship between them.

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: 'Certidão Criminal, consulta em fonte oficial' – querying a criminal certificate from the TJPA court. This is a specific verb (consultar) and resource (certidão criminal), and it distinguishes from generic platform 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?

It provides clear context: the tool queries official Brazilian sources and is available to citizens. It mentions payment via prepaid credit and no platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no similar sibling tools, the context is sufficient.

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