Tribunal TJRJ: Processo (eproc)

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it distinguishes between permanent (header config) and session-only login, explains the token parameter's meaning, and notes that calling with no args returns a link. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, adding useful 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 packed into two sentences with a clear structure (Best/Option), efficiently conveying setup and usage. It could be more organized, but it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 an authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, including both permanent and session configurations. It doesn't describe return values or error conditions, but the provided context is sufficient for 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?

Although schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description thoroughly explains the single 'token' parameter: it should be a JWT pasted from the browser, and explains the no-args case. This gives meaning beyond the schema's bare 'token' string.

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: authenticating a user by logging in via browser and copying an access token, with a token parameter for session login. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the dedicated authentication endpoint.

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 explicitly instructs when to call with no args to get the link, when to pass a token after pasting, and recommends adding the token as a header for permanent access. This gives clear usage directions and alternatives, even though it doesn't name 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by detailing the two possible return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], and connect_url when credentials are missing), which is beyond the annotation scope.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides meaningful context. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description reasonably explains the return values (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url). It covers the key states but could slightly elaborate on what 'per-install URLs' refer to, though this is minor for a status-check 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing to document beyond the schema, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 further distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than authentication actions. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'connection status' make the 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 provides conditional context: explains behavior when all providers are connected vs when credentials are missing. This implicitly tells an agent when to use the tool (to check connection status), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is clear enough for typical usage scenarios.

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 the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, openWorldHint:true) by explaining side effects: 'invoke WORKS even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit.' It details authentication (connect link), payment flows (checkout/top-up link), and permissions ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'), offering deep 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?

While every sentence adds value, the description is a dense wall of text mixing multiple concepts (marketplace actions, prompt library, billing) without bullet points or section breaks. The inclusion of the Portuguese word 'pontualmente' (likely a typo for 'once') and the occasional run-on structure make it harder to parse. It's comprehensive but not elegant.

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 complexity (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers an impressive range: core flow, auth, payment, permissions, billing, and even the prompt library. However, it omits explanations for the 'resume' action and the 'immediate' parameter, and doesn't clarify return value shapes. Minor gaps, but overall robust for an agent to operate effectively.

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 and 23 parameters, the description compensates by explaining the core action parameter and key fields (tool_id, prompt_vars, etc.) contextually (e.g., 'describe returns one MCP's full profile... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool'). However, several parameters like 'immediate' and 'tier_slug' remain unexplained, and the description doesn't systematically map each parameter, leaving some guesswork.

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 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' providing a clear verb+resource+scope. It thoroughly distinguishes itself from siblings by outlining the comprehensive core flow (search → describe → invoke) and explicitly differentiates itself from the prompt library feature ('It also carries the mcp.ai PROMPT LIBRARY...'), 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also contrasts with list_tools ('lists what is callable right now') and mentions alternatives like request_mcp for new needs. This is exemplary usage 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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the useful context that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, but it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., side effects, response). This is similar to the calibration example where annotations cover safety and description adds scoping 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides necessary information. There is 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?

The tool is simple, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits an explanation of the 'context' parameter and does not indicate what the tool returns or confirms success. This leaves some gaps, though the overall simplicity and clear purpose mitigate them.

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. It explains the conversation parameter's purpose (for reproduction) and implicitly clarifies that 'message' holds the feedback text, but it does not explain the 'context' parameter. Thus, it adds partial 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 states the tool's purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. This is a specific verb+resource combination and is easily distinguished 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (report issues or provide feedback) and even instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternative tools, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the nuance of 'current', implying live data. However, it doesn't disclose any further behavior (e.g., whether it performs network calls or returns cached data). It meets the baseline without adding extra depth 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 sentence, perfectly concise and front-loaded. It communicates the essential purpose without any filler, earning every word.

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 trivial nature of the tool—no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety—this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: a read-only summary of current versions. There is no missing information for the agent to decide or invoke 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 parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('versions'), and it is distinct from siblings like authenticate or connect, which have 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 when to use it—when you need to know current platform/adapter versions. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the simple nature and lack of competing tools, this is sufficient. It clearly indicates a read-only query.

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 useful transparency about what the returned state includes, going beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential performance or error behavior, but that is not critical for a simple read-only info 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 single focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the key returned data categories. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only purpose, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource and the main data contents. A slight gap is the absence of any detail about the response shape or formatting, but the enumerated content list is sufficient for practical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The description adds context about what the returned state contains, which is the main value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version.

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 the tool should be used when you need an overview of toolkit state, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of sibling tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though the read-only framing and sibling context make the intended use reasonably clear.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral and compliance context beyond those annotations: prepaid per-query billing, no platform credentials, official/citizen-accessible data, non-secret information, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the tribunal and purpose first, then payment and access context, then data sensitivity and compliance. Every sentence adds distinct information 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?

The description covers purpose, cost, credentials, data type, and compliance, which is good for a simple query tool. However, with five optional parameters and no output schema or parameter guidance, the description leaves functional usage unclear, so it is adequate 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?

Input schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (cpf, oab, cnpj, nome, numero_processo). There is no guidance on which combinations are valid, whether any parameter is required, or how search criteria interact, leaving the agent to rely solely on self-explanatory property names.

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 for consulting TJRJ (eproc) processes from an official source, with a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Processo eproc'). It is easily distinguished from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug.

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 useful context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and charges prepaid credit per query. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose tribunal query tool.

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