Tribunal TRF6: Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, so description doesn't need to restate that. It does add context about permanent vs session-only, but doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., config file modification) or what happens on failure. It's adequate but not detailed 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?

Two sentences, mostly front-loaded with the tool's role Error number. The second sentence is long but packed with essential usage details; no fluff, but could be broken into clearer steps.

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 no output schema, the description could explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, link, token). It explains input options but not the outcome behavior in detail. Since it's a simple auth tool with one optional paramton, the completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage but the description explains the token parameter: it is a JWT to paste for session-only loginable. It also clarifies behavior when omitted (gets link). This provides meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 authenticates a user for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) via browser login and access token. It distinguishes itself by explaining the two modes (permanent config vs session token) and mentions specific context (MCP.AI), making it distinct from generic auth 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 guidance on when to use it and how: either add token to server config for permanent connection, or pass token for session-only login, or call with no args to get link. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but clearly explains the two usage paths.

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 known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining the conditional response: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when fully connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's return states.

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 focused sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the key conditional behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, with 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?

This is a simple, parameterless status-check tool with strong annotations. The description covers the main return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs) and both meaningful states. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough detail for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not add irrelevant parameter information.

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 goes further by specifying the two possible outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing), giving a precise scope. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which presumably performs authentication rather than reporting status.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: to check if all providers are connected, and to retrieve connection/authentication URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional behavior provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate.

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 (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are minimal, but description adds rich behavior: invoke returns connect/checkout links, install makes permanent, permissions for writes, and one-off behavior. No contradictions; it expands on the annotations with actionable details.

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 long paragraph (~250 words) with no structural breaks, which could reduce scannability. However, every sentence adds value, front-loading the purpose and core flow, and keeping details relevant. It is dense but not wasteful, though a bit more structure (bullets/sections) would improve it.

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 23 params, 14 actions, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers core flow, auth/payment edge cases, permissions, prompt library, and even fallback behaviors (request_mcp). It addresses the complexity sufficiently for an agent to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains core parameters (action enum values, tool_id, arguments, mcp_id) and prompt-related params via the flow. However, not all 23 parameters are covered (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, cancel_comment) – they are left to inference. The description is strong on main ones but not exhaustive.

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?

Description clearly states it's the official marketplace for MCP/tool catalog and execution, with a specific verb ('marketplace') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by describing a core flow (search → describe → invoke) and prompt library, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use each action: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and explains describe for choosing tool_id. It also mentions 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed' and constraints like 'writes require workspace owner/admin'. This provides clear when-to and when-not-to 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction, which clarifies an expected input behavior. It does not go into depth about data handling or side effects, but annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific usage instruction. Every word 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?

For a simple bug-reporting tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers the essential action and the key instruction about conversation. It does not explain the optional 'context' parameter or post-submission behavior, but such detail is likely unnecessary given the tool's simplicity and good annotations.

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 explains the 'conversation' parameter (an array of recent messages for reproduction) but does not directly explain 'message' or 'context'. However, the purpose statement implies 'message' is the bug report text, and 'context' is less critical. This partial clarification warrants a 3.

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 bugs, missing features, or feedback, with a specific verb (report/send) and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace', which serve entirely 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the user wants to report a bug or provide feedback. It also gives a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no 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?

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'show', which is consistent but not extra. Since the bar is lower with annotations, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or 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 simple read-only version check, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool shows, and since there is no output schema, it does not need to explain return formats. It lacks explicit mention of output, but the 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-specific details, but none 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's function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific and distinguishes 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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for version checks, but lacks explicit guidance or context for when it should be preferred.

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 safely-read-only nature is established. The description adds useful context by listing what the returned toolkit state includes, though it does not disclose any caveats such as whether the state is cached, whether authentication is required, or what format the response takes.

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 action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then uses a list to enumerate the specific information returned. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 status tool, the description is largely complete: it names the tool's purpose and the categories of information the user should expect. It could be marginally stronger by noting the response format or nesting, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's low complexity, what is provided 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, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. As no parameters exist, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; it instead appropriately focuses on the tool's output.

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 clearly defines the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog-tool counts. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like show_version, which would only report version information.

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 implies the tool should be used whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's installed integrations and their connectivity, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., show_version or connect). There is no when-not-to-use guidance, but the zero-parameter read-only nature makes the usage context 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: prepaid per-query billing, no platform credentials needed, data sourced from official Brazilian bodies, and LGPD-related controller responsibilities. This meaningfully supplements the annotation-only safety profile.

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 compact three-sentence block that front-loads the core purpose and then adds payment, credential, and legal context. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly better structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It covers payment, credentials, and data-source context, but leaves the agent without guidance on how to fill parameters such as tipo_certidao, cpf/cnpj, orgao, and considera_filiais.

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 explanation of the five string parameters (cpf, cnpj, orgao, tipo_certidao, considera_filiais). It does not clarify valid values, required combinations, or how tipo_certidao relates to 'Cível e Criminal'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 the tool's function: 'Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal, consulta em fonte oficial' for 'Tribunal TRF6'. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource, and is easily distinguished from the 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 clear usage context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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