Tribunal TRF4: Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal

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

The description discloses side effects: it modifies the server config (for permanent) or establishes a session. It notes the persistence difference ('permanent, non-expiring' vs 'session-only'). It does not explicitly mention idempotency, but the annotation (idempotentHint: true) is consistent—calling multiple times just sets a token. 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 single, dense sentence but remains readable and informative. It covers all necessary information without excessive wordiness, though breaking it into shorter sentences could improve clarity.

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 annotations and schema, the description adds sufficient context about the authentication flow. It omits output details (e.g., success message), but for an auth tool, the primary outcome (token or link) is implied. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it 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 single optional parameter 'token' is well explained. The description states that calling without args retrieves the link, and calling with the token (JWT) after pasting completes the login. This fully clarifies the parameter's role and 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: authentication for IDE agents via browser login and token retrieval. It explicitly outlines the two usage modes (permanent config header vs session-only token) and distinguishes itself 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 concrete instructions: either add the token to the server config as an Authorization header for a permanent connection, or paste it for a session. It also explains how to call with or without the token parameter, and implies the recommended approach ('Best: add to config').

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 context about the two possible return states (authenticated vs. missing credentials), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe the exact structure of the response or any potential side effects, though none are expected given the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently explains the two possible outcomes without any 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete enough. It explains the two states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the format of the URLs or the exact response structure, but for a simple status check, this is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it provides meaningful context about the output states, which is the main value. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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, and distinguishes between the authenticated state and the missing-credentials state. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_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 when to use this tool (to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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?

No annotation contradiction found; the description actually expands on the annotations' implications. The readOnlyHint: false is honored and enriched with detail that invoke triggers one-off installs, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and that writes require owner/admin. The description discloses permissions, the point-in-time behavior of invoke, the link-return-and-retry pattern, and that installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags differ — all useful behavioral context an agent can't infer from the schema alone.

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 information-dense and every sentence does add value, but it's a single unbroken paragraph that mixes catalog discovery, invocation semantics, auth/billing nuances, prompt-library functionality, and permission restrictions. The 'KEY:' aside is a useful emphasis technique, but the lack of scannable structure (bullets, sentence cases) means an agent must grimly parse the whole statement to find the relevant behavior. It's compact, but it's compaction over structure.

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 high-complexity, multi-action tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the flagship flows well — including the non-obvious 'invoke returns a connect link then you retry' pattern and the permission model. But completeness for this tool is measured across its breadth (actions covered: search/describe/install/invoke/list_tools/subscribe/cancel/report_bug/request_mcp and all four prompt-library flows), and in that breadth, some flows are papered over: report_bug, resume, and request_mcp get name-checks only, with no parameters or response behavior described. Decent breadth, but the actions are of very different granularity and the descriptions don't scale to the tool's scope.

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% and the description is the ONLY source of parameter meaning, yet it references only action, query, mcp_id, and tool_id conceptually — leaving 19 of 23 parameters (including structured types like arguments, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, conversation) completely undocumented. The description also never maps which fields pair with which action values (e.g., which params describe expects). With zero schema description and zero parameter guidance, agents must guess at the field composition rules, which 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 states this is the official mcp.ai marketplace for discovering and running MCPs, with a stated core flow (search → describe → invoke). However, the tool bundles 14 different actions and two distinct subsystems (billing + prompt library), which fragments the 'resource' being described. It's specific and goes well beyond the tautological name, though it could more crisply state 'lists/installs/manages MCPs and prompts' as a single-sentence 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 provides strong usage guidance for when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), and it excludes billing/feedback/request actions. However, the guidance is buried in a dense monologue rather than structured, and since this is a single tool dispatching on an 'action' enum, the 'vs alternatives' comparison is largely internal to the description itself. Some alternatives (subscribe vs cancel) are implied in the billing flow but not explicitly compared.

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 that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a specific instruction. No extraneous 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?

The tool is simple with only 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential usage and the key instruction for reproduction. It lacks details about expected outcomes, but that is acceptable given the low complexity and annotation coverage.

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 explicitly instructs to include the conversation array, giving purpose to that parameter. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'message' or 'context' beyond the implicit purpose, leaving some gap.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This uses specific verbs and a clear resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (which are unrelated, 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 a practical guideline to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, though none are obvious 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it shows 'current' versions, implying live data, but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as network calls or caching. This meets the baseline for a simple read-only 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, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention the exact format of version output, but that is not critical for a getter tool. It is complete enough for an agent to decide usage.

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 is fully described (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail because none exists.okay. Per rubric, when 0 params, baseline is 4, which is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It is distinct from siblings like 'toolkit_info' and 'authenticate' by focusing on version information. No ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve version information, and it is a standalone operation with no apparent alternatives among siblings. It does not explicitly state 'use when you need version info' or exclude other tools, but the purpose is self-evident.

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 value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral context 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key output categories. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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 status tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It enumerates all the relevant output dimensions (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), so an agent knows what to expect even 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead.

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 precise resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and 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 makes the tool's context clear: use it to inspect the current toolkit state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter status tool the intended usage is obvious and no conflicting sibling behavior is suggested.

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 context beyond these: no platform credentials needed, cost implications (prepaid credits), and LGPD data-control responsibilities. It clarifies the data is not confidential, which is valuable behavioral information.

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 paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes payment and LGPD details that are relevant to usage, without excessive 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?

Despite good annotations, the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description fails to clarify parameter constraints, required values for 'tipo', or return format. The legal and commercial context is helpful but does not compensate for missing parameter and output information.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of 'cpf', 'cnpj', 'tipo', or 'birthdate'. The only hint is the certificate type (civil/criminal) implied by 'tipo', but this is not explicit and no parameter details are given.

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 performs a query for 'Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal' from the TRF4 tribunal via official sources, using specific verbs like 'consulta' and 'fontes oficiais'. Sibling tools are unrelated platform utilities, so this 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 provides useful context (paid per query, prepaid credits, no platform credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, only implied usage for obtaining Brazilian official certificates.

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