Tribunal TRF2: Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal

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

Describes both permanent and session behaviors, mentioning non-expiring vs session-only, and the need to paste token, but does not fully detail side effects or network calls.

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?

Description is moderately long but informative, with clear structure separating options.

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?

Covers usage, parameters, and outcomes adequately for the tool's simplicity, no output schema needed.

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?

Explains that the token is used for session-only login, and that no args retrieves the link, giving clear 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?

Clearly states it is for authentication, specifically MCP.AI for IDE agents, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on login token.

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 instructions on two modes (permanent via config, session via token), and when to call with token vs no args.

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 behavioral detail about response values in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for missing credentials), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 adds meaningful detail about conditional return values. No filler 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?

For a simple, parameterless read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the main success and missing-credential states. However, it does not explain partial connection states or the exact meaning of per-install URLs, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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 carries no parameter burden. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs, which is the correct approach for a parameterless 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific detail about the authenticated:true state and pending array. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication or general 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 this tool is used to check connection status and detect missing credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate. There are no exclusions or direct references to sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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?

Despite no annotations (only title/name), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: invoke runs MCPs without installing them, writes require owner/admin, auth/checkout link flows, and the prompt library distinction. 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 a wall of text with no paragraph breaks, flowing from marketplace overview to nuance (e.g., 'The official mcp.ai marketplace' runs on). It front-loads core flow but buries key operational details (install vs invoke, permission requirements, prompt library) in dense prose.

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 complexity (14+ action types, prompt library, install/invoke distinction, auth/payment flows), the description covers most material: action semantics, one-off vs permanent installs, auth/checkout links, and prompt publishing. Missing: what 'resume' does avoir, and nuance on 'immediate' behavior.

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?

Many schema params are self-explanatory, but the description clarifies the flow: search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt and prompt_* params are explained. Some params like resume, immediate, tier_slug remain implicit (covered by schema names/defaults).

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 marketplace as the official MCP/tool catalog AND execution engine, with a specific verb per action (search/describe/invoke/install). It explicitly distinguishes the core flow: discover via search → inspect via describe → run via invoke, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from generic marketplace 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 when-to-use guidance for each action: prefer invoke for one-off usage, use install only for permanent inclusion, subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, request_mcp for new tool requests. Also gives behavioral branches (connect link if auth needed, checkout link if wallet empty, then retry).

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 show idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so it's safe to call. Description adds 'include conversation array for reproduction' but does not discuss side effects, limits, or what happens when reported. Since it's a reporting tool, no major side effects are expected, but it could state that it sends data to developers.

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?

Single sentence, concise and to the point. It earns its place by stating purpose and a key detail about conversation array.

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?

Tool is simple with 3 params and no output schema. Description covers purpose and one parameter hint. Given complexity is low, it's adequate but could elaborate on what to include in 'message' and optional nature of context.

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 compensate. It names 'conversation' variable but not the other parameters. It doesn't explain what 'message' or 'context' are beyond their names. Low added value for param 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 reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, and mentions including conversation array for reproduction. It distinguishes from siblings which are about authentication, marketplace, etc., but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a clear context of when to use (report bug/feedback) but does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives. It implicitly differentiates from other tools by its purpose.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description aligns with these (show implies non-mutating) and adds no contradiction. It does not add extra context, but none is needed for this simple 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and subject. No filler or redundant information. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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, idempotent tool returning version info, the description fully covers what it does. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently sets expectations. Minimal complexity warrants minimal description.

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)Skip, so description adds no parameter semantics. Per rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. Schema coverage is 100% by default, so no gaps 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's function: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It identifies a specific verb ('show') and a specific resource (versions), and is distinct from sibling tools 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident. For a trivial read-only tool, lack of explicit usage context is acceptable, though it doesn't meet the bar for 'explicit when/when-not'.

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 well-covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention potential side effects, but given the read-only nature, none are expected. The description complements the annotations well.

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 efficiently lists all the key information the tool returns. Every element mentioned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) is meaningful and adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose ('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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the format of the return (e.g., JSON structure), but since there's no output schema, the description could have been more explicit about the structure. However, for a zero-parameter informational tool, this is adequate.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than parameters. No additional parameter semantics are 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 the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb ('returns') with a clear resource ('toolkit state') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' (which likely returns version info) and 'authenticate' (which manages 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 description implies this is a diagnostic/inspection tool for checking the state of the toolkit, which is clear from the content. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but given the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version), the purpose is distinct enough that an agent would know to use this when needing an overview of the toolkit's current state. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context about prepaid credit requirements, the public nature of the data, and LGPD compliance obligations. This provides behavioral insight beyond the safety hints.

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 and covers multiple relevant aspects (purpose, payment, official source, LGPD) in a short paragraph. It could be slightly more structured but every 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?

The description gives context on the official source and payment model, but lacks critical details about inputs and outputs. With no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, an agent may struggle to invoke the tool correctly despite understanding its 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter meanings or formats. It only alludes to the certificate type in natural language but fails to document 'cpf', 'cnpj', 'birthdate', or valid values for 'tipo_certidao', leaving the agent without necessary input 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 states a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal' from Tribunal TRF2). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by focusing on a specific court document query.

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 explains the payment model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and the lack of platform credentials, which helps an agent understand prerequisites and constraints. It implies when to use the tool (for official Brazilian court certificates), though it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions.

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