Tribunal TRF2: Processo (eproc)

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

The description reveals two login flows and implies state changes (permanent vs session), but does not explicitly mention side effects or idempotency. However, annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, so the description adds reasonable 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 somewhat verbose and uses conditional phrasing, which can be confusing. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is not excessively long.

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 does not state what the tool returns after authentication. Since there is no output schema, this missing information is critical for understanding the tool's 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?

The 'token' parameter is explained in context as the JWT access token, and it is clear that it is optional (since no args gets the link). The description covers the parameter's semantics despite the lack of schema documentation.

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 that the tool handles authentication for MCP.AI, explaining the login flow and token usage. It is distinct from sibling tools like connect 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?

It provides explicit guidance on two usage modes: permanent (add to config as header) and session-only (paste token), and explains how to initiate with no args to get the login link.

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 by explaining the exact behavior: it returns authenticated status, pending list, and connect URLs under different conditions. This provides transparency about the tool's state and output.

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 well-structured: it states the main purpose, then provides conditional details. It is not overly verbose and conveys essential information clearly.

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 primary scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions key response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). However, it does not specify the exact response format or structure, which could be clarified for full 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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty. There is nothing to explain about parameters, so the description is complete in this regard.

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: it returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional behavior for when credentials are missing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate.

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 the tool (to check connection status or obtain URLs) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like authenticate or marketplace. It would benefit from mentioning that it should be used for status checks rather than authentication.

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?

It discloses important side effects: invoke runs MCPs one-off without installing them, but also can return connect/checkout links and performs a one-off install behind the scenes. It additionally states that write operations require workspace owner/admin, which adds meaningful behavior 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 dense but efficient; almost every sentence carries necessary information about a complex multi-action tool. It is not well structured, however, and runs together multiple functional areas in one long paragraph, making it harder to scan quickly.

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 major user journeys—search, inspect, invoke, install, billing, prompt library, and permission requirements—well enough for an agent to select the right action. It is not fully complete because interactions between the many optional params are left implicit, but for the primary workflows it provides solid coverage in the schema/annotations mix.

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 schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description is responsible for parameter semantics. It does explain the key action/tool fields (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id) and the overall flow, but many parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, resume, conversation, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, and various report/request fields are not meaningfully explained. This is a significant gap for a 23-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 clearly identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution front door, covering both discovery and running of MCPs. It breaks out the search/describe/invoke flow, the install/uninstall operations, and the separate prompt-library subset, which differentiates it from the sibling 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use each major flow: search→describe→invoke for discovery and one-off use, install only to make an MCP permanent, and subscribe/cancel for billing. It also states when to use the prompt library instead of the MCP-catalog functionality.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover those. The description adds that it includes conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, sends an email, etc.) or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, two sentences, and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a key instruction about including the conversation array. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured with parameter details.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter, the expected format of 'message', or how the conversation array should be structured. For a feedback tool, it should clarify what constitutes a useful report. The description is too thin for the complexity.

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 mentions 'conversation array' but the schema defines 'conversation' as a string with default '[]', which is ambiguous. The description doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or the format of 'message'. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter usage.

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. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on user feedback rather than authentication, connection, or process consultation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar feedback tools, but given the sibling list, it's clear enough.

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 reporting bugs or feedback) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a hint about including conversation context for reproduction, which is useful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other tools, though the sibling list suggests it's the only feedback tool.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. The description adds the detail that it reports both platform and adapter versions, which is a specific behavioral trait not in annotations. No contradictions detected.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core message and contains every word for a purpose. Perfectly concise and structured.

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 trivial with no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description sufficiently conveys what it does, though it does not explicitly mention the return format. However, given the low complexity and existing annotations, this is complete enough.

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 according to the rubric. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it correctly communicates the scope of the 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's purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and a specific resource ('versions'), and it is distinctive from all sibling tools, none of which relate to version display.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. Usage is implied (e.g., when needing version info), but no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output nature.

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, well-structured sentence that packs all necessary information without fluff. It uses an em-dash list to enumerate the returned data, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and the scope of that data. There are no additional behaviors or constraints that need disclosure, given the annotations already cover safety.

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). Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none, and 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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb (returns) with a concrete resource (toolkit state) and detailed contents, distinguishing it 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need a snapshot of the toolkit's installed MCPs and their health. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling set (e.g., show_version for version info, marketplace for browsing), so it earns a 4.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds essential behavior: pay-per-query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials, official non-confidential source, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond 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?

Four sentences, each adding relevant value: purpose, hosting/credentials, data nature, and LGPD. Slightly wordy but well-structured with the operation stated first. No redundant 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?

The description covers safety, cost, and data origin, but lacks guidance on which parameters to use, whether any is required, return format, or pagination. Given the read-only annotations and no output schema, some gaps remain but the core purpose is clear.

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 provides no meaning or usage guidance for the five parameters (cpf, oab, cnpj, nome_parte, numero_processo). It does not explain whether they are alternatives, required, or formatted. The description fails to compensate for the 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 states the tool's verb and resource: 'consulta em fonte oficial' for 'Processo (eproc)' at 'Tribunal TRF2'. It distinguishes from generic platform siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace) by specifying the exact court and process type.

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?

Usage is implied: use when querying TRF2 eproc process information. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor mention of alternative tools, as none exist among siblings.

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