Tribunal TJRJ: Cadastro de Pedido de Certidão

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds context that config-based auth gives a permanent non-expiring connection, while pasted token is session-only, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictions 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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with context. Each sentence adds value: why the tool exists, the best method, and the alternative method. No verbosity 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 tool's purpose, both usage modes, and parameter semantics. There is no output schema, but the tool likely returns a link or status; this is not mentioned, but it's not critical for authentication flow. Given the simplicity, the description is sufficiently 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 only parameter 'token' is fully explained: it is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and omitting it returns the login link. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so clearly, adding 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 explains the tool authenticates the user by logging in via browser and provides the access token. It gives a specific process and distinguishes between config-based and session-based authentication. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect', but the purpose is 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 tells when to use the config header method ('Best') vs pasting a token ('session-only'), and also when to call with no args ('to get the link'). It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect'.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable detail about the two possible return states—authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect_url for missing credentials—which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause contributes useful conditional detail.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description provides enough context about expected return states. It does not fully define pending[] or per-install URLs, but the core behavior is adequately covered without 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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than initiating 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 conditional behavior ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') implies the tool is used to check connection state, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus authenticate or other alternatives. The intended usage is clear from context but not stated as a recommendation.

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 annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, requires owner/admin for writes, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. This provides critical context for side effects and permission checks, far exceeding what the annotations alone offer.

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 lengthy but dense, front-loading the purpose and core flow. It covers all 15 actions in a single paragraph without wasted words. While a list structure might improve readability, the complexity of the tool justifies the length and each sentence adds value.

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 high complexity (23 params, 15 actions, no output schema), the description covers the main flows, edge cases (not installed, empty wallet), and expected return links (connect/checkout/publish). Some actions like resume and list_tools are only briefly mentioned, and deeper parameter details are missing, but overall it is highly 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 0% schema coverage and 23 parameters, the description compensates by explaining the action enum in depth and giving context for mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields. However, several parameters like limit, immediate, cancel_reason, and prompt_targets remain undocumented, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 is 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes between invoke, install, and the prompt library. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate and 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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), when to use report_bug/request_mcp, and the overall workflow. It also notes permission requirements for writes, enabling the agent to choose the right action and anticipate prerequisites.

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 cover safety and idempotency: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful expectation that recent conversation content should be included for reproduction, though it does not disclose side effects after submission, consent, auth, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with no padding: use cases are named first and the repro guidance is given second. It is well-structured for easy scanning.

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 feed-back tool, the description captures the main purpose and a key usage nuance, but it leaves required-parameter guidance, conversation serialization format, and expected feedback side effects/messages under-specified. It is minimally viable but not 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 should carry most parameter meaning. It only covers the optional 'conversation' field, and 'array' conflicts slightly with schema's string type. The required 'message' parameter and the optional 'context' parameter receive no meaningful explanation.

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 concrete purposes: fix it, missing feature, and feedback — using 'Report', a specific verb. This clearly distinguishes 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 clearly says when to use it: for bug reports, missing features, or feedback, and gives an explicit instruction to include the conversation for reproduction. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of fully explicit exclusion 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool reports current platform and adapter versions, but it does not disclose response shape, performance characteristics, or other behavioral nuance beyond what annotations already signal.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only version tool, the description is mostly sufficient. The only slight gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not describe what the returned version data will look like, but this is not a major omission for such a straightforward operation.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond what the schema already communicates. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because no compensation for undocumented parameters is 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly names the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinct from siblings focused on authentication, marketplace, bug reporting, and other 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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like toolkit_info or how to interpret the version information. There are no explicit usage contexts, exclusions, or comparison with 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 establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the exact output contents, which is especially important because no output schema is present. It does not contradict any 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 that states the tool's purpose and enumerates its return fields without any filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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, zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, and the annotations cover safety and side-effect behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit enumeration of return contents.

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 empty schema fully covers parameter constraints. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there is no missing parameter documentation to compensate for.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling informational tools like show_version by naming the specific state fields 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 clearly communicates that this is the tool for inspecting overall toolkit status, which provides strong usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter state-inspection tool, the intended usage is clear enough.

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 beyond annotations: it explains the source (official Brazilian sources, same as available to citizens), emphasizes non-secret data, and clarifies LGPD compliance and client responsibility. No contradiction with annotations; the additional info enhances transparency.

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 short paragraph with three sentences. It is concise and avoids fluff, covering purpose, payment, and legal aspects efficiently. The structure lacks bullet points but is acceptable for a tool of moderate 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?

With 12 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, the expected workflow for requesting a certificate, or how the payment/credit system affects usage. The description covers legal and sourcing aspects but omits critical operational details needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. Required fields like tipo_certidao, comarca, and finalidade are not defined. The description only mentions the overall purpose without detailing input semantics, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to construct a valid request.

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 states it is for 'Cadastro de Pedido de Certidão, consulta em fonte oficial' but is ambiguous about whether it registers a request or queries existing information. The tool name suggests 'consultar' (query), but the description mixes registration and query. It does not clearly specify the verb and resource, though it mentions TJRJ and certificate, giving partial clarity.

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 some usage context (hosted by platform, no credentials needed, pay per query with prepaid credit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are unrelated generic platform tools, so no direct alternatives are mentioned. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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