Tribunal TRT14: Consulta Processual

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, which the description does not contradict. The description adds context about the two authentication workflows, the session vs permanent distinction, and what the response contains (a link). It does not detail side effects or error handling, but with annotations the bar is lower; this is sufficient.

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, but it packs in multiple instructions (browser login, token copy, config option, session option, no-args behavior). It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Slightly dense but no fluff, though it could be broken into two sentences for 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 tool's complexity (authentication with two distinct flows, prerequisite user action), the description covers all necessary context: getting the token, installing permanently via config, session-only usage, and how to trigger the link. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains 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 schema provides only a generic 'token' string with no description. The tool description explains exactly how to use the token: paste it in the call, or leave out to get the link. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema, compensating for zero schema description 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 states the tool's purpose: authentication for IDE agents. It specifies both modes (permanent config vs session-only) and tells how to invoke it (with or without token). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or report_bug, which serve different functions.

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 describes when to use each method: adding token to config for permanent access, or pasting token for session-only. It also explains when to call with no args (to get the link). This provides clear guidance on invocation scenarios and prerequisites.

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 conditional behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing, which goes 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and both sentences carry useful conditional behavior. 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and under what conditions. It is complete for this tool's 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to compensate for. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since there is no param meaning to add.

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 and resource ("Returns connection status and URLs") and clarifies its read-only purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate. It also names concrete return values, making the tool's function 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 clearly conveys when this tool is useful by explaining the two outcomes: all providers connected vs. missing credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over authenticate or report_bug.

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 having annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It reveals that invoke works even for uninstalled MCPs, runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. These details are not present in the annotations, so the description carries significant extra value without contradicting any annotation.

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 paragraph exceeding 200 words with no bullet points, headings, or any structural segmentation. While every sentence carries information, the lack of organization makes it hard to scan and parse. It is not concise; it could be split into sections per action or flow without losing content. The front-loading is adequate but the overall structure is poor.

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 complexity (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the vast majority of relevant context: all actions, their relationships, permission requirements, billing, auth flows, and the prompt library. It does not describe return value formats, but since no output schema exists, this is a minor omission. It adequately addresses most aspects an agent would need to know to select and invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema parameter coverage, the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of key parameters implicitly through action descriptions (e.g., mcp_id for describe, tool_id and arguments for invoke), and it describes the prompt-library parameters (prompt_slug, etc.). However, it doesn't systematically define all 23 parameters; obscure ones like 'immediate', 'tier_slug', 'cancel_reason', and 'prompt_targets' are not explicitly explained beyond their names. The description gives functional context but leaves gaps for parameters not tied to a described action.

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 explicitly states the tool's role as 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates all 14 actions and explains their functions, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info' by positioning it as the central hub for discovering, running, and managing MCPs. The verb+resource structure is specific and 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 an explicit core flow: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also gives clear when-to-use guidance, such as 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' versus 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It covers exclusions and prerequisites, including permission requirements for writes and the behavior of invoke when credentials or payment are needed.

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 cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive traits. The description adds useful context about including conversation messages for reproduction, but it does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation or external notification).

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 concise sentences; the first states the purpose and the second adds the key usage instruction. No filler 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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover safety traits, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits semantics for the context parameter and gives a conversation type that conflicts with the schema, leaving some ambiguity for a 3-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameters, but it only addresses conversation and labels it an 'array' while the schema declares type string. The 'context' parameter is left unexplained, and 'message' is only implied by the tool purpose.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and resource types ('a bug, missing feature, or feedback'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, 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?

The first clause establishes when to use the tool (bug, missing feature, feedback), providing clear context. It does not name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but no closely related sibling exists.

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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., output format, delays) beyond the fact that it shows versions, but with no annotations contradiction attempt, the description is not misleading. It earns a 3 by adding marginal context without contradicting.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Show,' and contains no waste. It fully communicates the purpose in minimal verbiage, earning a perfect score for conciseness and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of readOnly and idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could have mentioned what format the version output takes, but the lack of complexity makes the description sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 properties are empty with 100% coverage. The description need not explain parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 current MCP platform and adapter versions, a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which have different purposes, though it does not 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when needing version information) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling tools have unrelated purposes, the context is clear enough, but the description itself lacks any direct usage guidance beyond the obvious.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent. It adds behavioral detail by listing exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes 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?

A single sentence with a front-loaded subject ('Returns the current toolkit state') and an enumerated list of contents. No filler or redundant wording.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden. It enumerates four distinct pieces of returned information, which adequately covers the expected payload for a read-only state tool. It could be slightly more specific about value formats, but the basics are present.

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 no parameter explanations are needed. The description correctly focuses on the return payload rather than input.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the returned contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which is narrower.

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 the tool is for inspecting overall toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over show_version or other sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implied.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: it involves a cost (prepaid credits), accesses official public data, and clarifies data privacy responsibilities under LGPD. This fully discloses the operational consequences.

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 moderately lengthy but packs essential information about the service, payment, and legal compliance. It could be trimmed slightly, but every sentence adds value, so it remains concise relative to its 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?

The description covers purpose and behavioral aspects, but it omits details on parameter semantics and the structure of the output. Given the minimal schema (no descriptions) and lack of output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for a user to fully understand the tool's 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 description does not explain the two required parameters, 'grau' and 'numero_processo'. While the tool name implies process lookup, the specific meanings and expected formats of these inputs are not described, leaving users to infer from schema alone.

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 this tool is for procedural consultation at TRT14 court, using an official source. It specifies that it is a read-only query for official information, 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 usage context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and operates on a prepaid credit system. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but it conveys when and how to use it, earning a high score.

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