Tribunal TJRS: Certidão do 1º Grau

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true. The description adds valuable context: the permanent config approach vs session-only login, and the token format (JWT). It does not contradict annotations and explains the authentication flow.

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 informative sentence with clear instructions preloaded. It's concise enough, though it's a bit packed. It front-loads the purpose.

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 simple tool, the description covers the two usage modes ('config' vs 'paste'), explains the optional token, and implies the response (link). It doesn't explicitly state the return format, but that's not critical for this type of tool. Overall it's complete for an agent to 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 schema has one optional param 'token' with no description. The description explains its usage: providing a JWT for session login, or omitting for a link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 as an authentication mechanism for IDE agents, explaining the login flow and token acquisition. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'connect', the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 usage context: it explains both methods (config header vs. pasting token) and when to call with or without arguments. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, reducing the burden. The description adds valuable context about the exact output in two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending, and connect_url when credentials are missing), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and then elaborates on the two possible returns. Every word adds value with no 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values and conditions. It sufficiently covers both success and error states, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the guidelines. The schema is trivially fully covered, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics since none exist.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'connection status and URLs', and specifies two distinct output states. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which handles auth) and other tools, making 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 clear context on when it's useful (checking connection status) and outlines behavior under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude any cases, so it falls short of 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals critical behaviors: invoke runs one-off without adding to toolkit, install makes permanent, writes require workspace owner/admin, and invoke may return connect or checkout links for auth/payment. It also explains that search/describe flag installed vs workspace status, which goes well beyond structured metadata.

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 long but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and flow. It covers many aspects in a single cohesive paragraph without excessive repetition, though some trimming could improve scannability. Given the tool's complexity, the length is justified 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?

For a tool with 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides remarkably complete context. It explains the core workflows, the one-off vs permanent distinction, auth/payment handling, billing via subscribe/cancel, the prompt library, and permission requirements. It effectively fills gaps left by the absent output schema and parameter descriptions, making it highly usable for an agent.

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 explains the key 'action' enum values and how they map to flows, and mentions specific parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields. However, it does not systematically cover all 23 parameters, leaving some (e.g., limit, query, message) to be inferred from context or default values, so it does not fully substitute for 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 identifies the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and explains its core function: cataloging and running MCPs/tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing its unique actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and the prompt library, which are not covered by other tools like authenticate 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke), mentions when to use subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp, and clarifies that search/describe flag installation status, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directions.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds little beyond purpose and doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or post-submission behavior, but it doesn't contradict 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?

A single sentence that states the exact purpose and includes a key usage detail. No redundant words, no rambling, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 straightforward feedback/report tool, the description covers the core action and the reproduction hint. It doesn't mention output or what happens after submission, but no output schema exists and the annotations cover basic behavior. This is adequate for the simplicity of 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains the 'conversation' parameter by asking for the array of recent messages, but the schema type is actually 'string' (likely JSON-encoded), which is slightly misleading. The required 'message' parameter and the optional 'context' parameter are not described at all.

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 specific action 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback', clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also mentions the key input (conversation array) and is distinct from unrelated siblings like authenticate, connect, and tribunal_tjrs_primeiro_grau_consultar.

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 instruction to include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction provides clear usage context. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool comparisons, but the sibling set is unrelated, so this level of guidance is reasonable.

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 the fact that versions are 'current', implying it returns live data, which is minor additional context. No contradiction exists; it's consistent 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, clear sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resources, making it immediately parseable. No unnecessary details are 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what an agent needs to know: the tool displays current versions. It is complete for its scope, and sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' do not overlap since 'show_version' is specific to version details.

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 description need not explain any. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' The verb 'show' and the specific resources (platform and adapter versions) make it distinct from siblings, which include actions like 'authenticate', 'connect', and '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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, given the trivial nature of the tool (no parameters, no side effects), the purpose itself implies usage: when one needs version information. Adequate but lacks explicit alternative disambiguation, though no close alternatives exist 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable detail about what 'state' includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), enhancing transparency beyond the annotations without any 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately details the output. 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?

For a read-only, no-parameter tool, the description fully specifies what the user gets. No output schema exists, so no additional return format is expected. The information provided completely satisfies the tool's purpose.

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 baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the return value.

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 explicitly lists the resource (toolkit state) and the details included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'show_version' 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 purpose is unambiguous and implies when to use it (to inspect toolkit state) without needing explicit exclusions. It doesn't name alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that guidance isn't strictly required, though a brief 'use when' note would have been 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: pay-per-query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials needed, official/public source, non-confidential data, and LGPD controller responsibility.

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 with the core purpose. The additional sentences about payment and LGPD are useful context rather than filler, though the legal sentence is slightly dense and could be tightened.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough. It explains the data source and legal framing but does not describe return values, required input meaning, expected certificate format, result limits, or any invocation prerequisites.

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 there are 14 parameters, but the description provides no guidance on any of their meanings, formats, relationships, or required combinations. Fields like tipo_certidao, endereco, rg, orgao_expedidor_rg, and birthdate are completely uninterpreted.

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 'Tribunal TJRS: Certidão do 1º Grau, consulta em fonte oficial', identifying a specific verb (consulta) and resource (first-grade certificate from the TJRS court). This clearly distinguishes it from 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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives. It implies usefor TJRS first-degree certificate lookup, but that is mainly inferred from the tool name rather than stated operationally.

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