Tribunal TRT16: Consulta Processual

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details beyond annotations, including the distinction between permanent config-based auth and session-only token paste, and that no args yields a login link. Annotations already mark idempotent and non-destructive; no contradiction found.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's context and purpose, and every sentence adds actionable information. It avoids fluff or repetition of schema data.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication flow, token parameter semantics, and two usage modes. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what response or confirmation the user sees after submitting a token.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, and that calling with no args returns the link. This gives clear semantic meaning to the only parameter.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token handling. It explains the primary workflow and different call modes, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool '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 gives explicit guidance: use the config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, paste the token for a session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. It does not mention when not to use this tool in favor of a specific sibling.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior of the return value (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs connect_url), which is not in the annotations. No contradiction.

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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential detail: the first states what it returns, the second explains conditional variations. No wasted 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema is not needed, and annotations cover safety. The description fully explains the tool's output behavior, making it complete for an agent to understand what to expect. The complexity is low, so the description 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)SkipSchema coverage is 100% (%) as there are no properties, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. With no params, baseline is 4. The description additionally clarifies the meaning of the return values, which helps in understanding the tool's behavior without parameters.

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 details on output states (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when connect_url is provided. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and 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 usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus authenticate or other siblings. It provides context on when different outputs appear (all providers connected vs credentials missing), but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives.

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 sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses critical behavior: invoke runs tools even when not installed, returns connect links for credentials and checkout links for payment, and requires owner/admin for writes. It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags, providing far more transparency than the annotations 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 long but tightly organized, starting with the core flow, then covering install, list_tools, billing, and the prompt library. Every sentence adds unique information with no redundancy, and the front-loaded structure makes the primary use case immediately clear.

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 23 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the entire action surface, edge cases like auth and payment, permission requirements, and the complementary prompt library. This is more than sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use 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 description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the action enum and the roles of key parameters like query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields. It does not detail every parameter (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, conversation), but provides enough for the core workflow, so it goes well beyond the schema without being 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?

The description clearly states the tool is the official marketplace for MCPs, covering discovery, description, invocation, installation, and the prompt library. It explicitly defines the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and differentiates from siblings like report_bug and authenticate by being the catalog and execution engine.

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, install for permanent persistence, list_tools for currently callable tools, and subscribe/cancel for billing. It also explains the prompt library as a separate domain. This leaves no ambiguity about which action to choose in different scenarios.

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 the basic safety profile: not read-only, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds the valuable detail that the conversation history should be included to reproduce the reported issue, and implies a submission is sent. However, it does not reveal what occurs after submission, how the report will be used, or whether the idempotentHint means duplicate submissions are deduplicated. This is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose and target users, and the second sentence providing the most important usage hint. No filler, no redundancy, and the wording is compact while carrying necessary information.

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 feedback tool with three fields and no output schema, the description provides the main purpose and one key parameter—the conversation—which is enough to use the tool minimally. However, it does not mention what happens after a report is submitted (e.g., confirmation, ticket handling), and it leaves the intended meaning of 'message' and 'context' implicit. The lack of output schema makes these omissions more noticeable, so the description is merely adequate, not complete.

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 for the parameter meaning. It explains the 'conversation' parameter as a conversation array, but the schema type is string with a default of '[]', so the description actually suggests an array type while the schema expects a JSON string. It does not describe the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 action with the verb 'Report' and lists concrete targets: 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from its siblings such as market_info, authenticate, or show_version, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby alternatives. It could slightly benefit from stating that it is the feedback/reporting channel.

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 outlines usage contexts: use this when a bug is found, when a feature is missing, or when feedback is needed. It also adds a concrete usage requirement ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which sibling to use in place of it, but none of the siblings appear to be competing report tools, so 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 flag readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific output (platform and adapter versions), which is helpful and goes beyond annotations. It doesn't mention return format or network calls, but for a simple version query, that's acceptable.

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, concise sentence that precisely states the tool's function. It's front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the one-sentence description fully specifies the tool's behavior. Nothing essential is missing for a version-check 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info. Nothing more is 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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb ('Show') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like toolkit_info, which likely covers broader toolkit details, making the 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?

The description gives implicit context for when to use it (when needing version info) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since it's a read-only informational tool with no parameters, the usage is self-evident, but it could have mentioned 'Use when you need to check installed versions'.

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 mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds clarity about the content of the returned state (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts). No behavioral details beyond the structured information are disclosed, such as whether the state reflects cached or live data, but the description is consistent with 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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and packs four distinct data points into a readable structure, with no wasted 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns and is as comprehensive as needed. Nothing further is necessary 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?

There are zero parameters; the schema is entirely empty. Per baseline rules, 0 params garners a 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema already conveys (which is nothing to define).

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 starts with a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('toolkit state') and enumerates the specific data returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This level of detail clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' and '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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's evident this is an informational read-only tool, there is no mention of when to invoke it (e.g., before connecting or authenticating) or why it might be preferred over sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'connect'.

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=false. The description adds valuable context about the payment model (prepaid credits), absence of platform credentials, the public/non-secret nature of the data, and LGPD controller responsibility. This goes 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 concise, containing three sentences of relevant information: purpose, operational context, and legal data handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, though it could be more 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 has no output schema, yet the description does not describe the return format, pagination, or error behavior. It also lacks parameter details. While it covers cost, auth, and legal context well, the missing output and parameter information makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently use.

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 input schema has two parameters (grau, numero_processo) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or requiredness of these parameters, leaving the agent without the necessary semantics to invoke the tool correctly.

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 procedural consultation ('Consulta Processual') at TRT16, using an official source. It is specific about the resource (processos) and differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 practical operational context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials needed, paid per query with prepaid credits. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but alternatives are not apparent among siblings.

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