Tribunal TRT21: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

The description discloses key behaviors: calling with no args initiates a browser login flow and returns a link, while providing a token establishes a session. It also explains the difference between permanent and session-only connections, adding context beyond the sparse 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 well-structured with 'Best:' and 'Or', and the main point is front-loaded. It is a bit dense but each sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient and easy to follow.

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 main use cases and mentions the return of a link when no args are given, but it does not explain the full response when a token is provided or handle error scenarios. Since no output schema exists, these details are missing.

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 fully explains the 'token' parameter: it is a JWT to be pasted, and it is optional since calling with no args returns a link. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of parameter description.

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: authenticate the user by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It focuses on the authentication flow and provides specific instructions, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like '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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use each method: configuring a permanent header vs. providing a session token. It also explains when to call with no arguments to get a login link, providing clear usage direction without mentioning alternative tools.

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 known. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying what is returned in different connection states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url and per-install URLs). This is useful context the annotations do not 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and followed by clear conditional branches. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with 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?

For a simple status-check tool with no parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the key states and field names (authenticated, pending, connect_url). However, it does not explicitly describe the partial-connection case (only 'all providers connected' vs. 'credentials missing'), and it omits the shape of pending[] in the missing-credentials branch. This minor gap prevents a 5.

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 is empty with 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs,' a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly states what the tool does. It further elaborates with conditional behaviors (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (performing auth) and toolkit_info (general 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 the tool is useful by describing the two scenarios (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), but it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives like authenticate. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than 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?

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description reveals critical behaviors: invoke runs tools one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and writes require owner/admin. It also discloses the tool's role in managing prompts. No contradiction with annotations 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 long but information-dense, covering many actions and edge cases. It follows a logical flow (core flow → key exceptions → permissions → prompt library), though it is a single block of text without formatting. Every sentence adds substantive 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?

For a complex hub tool with 14 actions and 23 params, the description covers discovery, invocation, installation, billing, permissions, and prompt library behavior. It lacks explicit detail on some actions like resume and some parameters, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to effectively use the tool in most cases.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the core parameters (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) and prompt-related macros, but many fields like limit, immediate, tier_slug, and various request/prompt metadata are left unexplained. It provides meaning for the most important params but not the full surface.

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 marketplace as the central catalog and execution hub for MCPs and tools. It uses specific verbs (search, describe, invoke, install) and provides a concrete core flow, distinguishing it from siblings 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 explicitly differentiates when to use invoke vs install: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains the retry flow for credential/payment links and notes that writes require workspace owner/admin, giving clear situational 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 the tool is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds that the conversation should be included for reproduction, which hints that submission data is used for debugging. However, it does not disclose what the response does with the report or whether any permission is needed. With annotations covering the basic behavior, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and provides one essential usage tip. It does not waste any words. A slight increase in length could add needed parameter semantics, but the current structure is efficient.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and low annotation guidance. The description does not cover what 'message' should contain, how to format the conversation string, or what happens after submission. For a simple reporting tool this may be workable, but the agent is left uncertain about key fields for correct invocation.

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 fill the gap. It only mentions 'conversation array' but does not clarify that the schema defines conversation as a string (likely JSON). The required 'message' parameter and the optional 'context' parameter are not explained at all, leaving 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 states the tool's action: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb and resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which include authentication, marketplace, and system info 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 clear context: use this tool for reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. It also provides a concrete usage direction by telling the agent to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve a similar purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it covers both platform and adapter versions, which is useful scope detail. However, it doesn't disclose anything beyond that, such as whether network access is required or how the version string is formatted.

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 directly states the action and scope. Every word is informative, and it is immediately clear what the tool does and what data it reports.

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, zero-parameter informational tool. The description fully covers the purpose, scope, and outcome ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). For its simplicity, no further context is needed.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, and there is no parameter-related ambiguity to clarify.

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: displaying current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource being reported, 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that version information might also be available from 'toolkit_info' or other tools, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative, not actionable 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific content returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which enriches the behavioral understanding beyond just 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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise but packs in the key details without redundancy, earning a 4.

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 info tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what information is returned, covering the tool's entire behavior. The complexity is low, and the description fully serves the agent's needs.

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, so the description does not need to add parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient for a parameterless 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 what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like authenticate, connect, or show_version, although it does not explicitly name the 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 that the tool is used to inspect the toolkit state, which is clear in context of sibling tools that perform actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it, but for a stateless info tool, the context is adequate.

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, the description adds useful behavioral context: payment cost, no credential requirement, LGPD data-responsibility, and that the data is not secret. This does not contradict the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Later sentences about credentials, payment, and LGPD are useful and earn their place, though the phrasing is slightly repetitive.

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?

Since this is a two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description should explain how to construct a request and what to expect, but it merely describes the abstract service. A user could not tell the agent the minimum valid input combination.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the CPF or CNPJ parameters. It does not clarify whether either is required, which one takes precedence, or whether passing both is acceptable, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 specifies a read operation ('consulta') on a defined resource — the 'Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)' from the official TRT21 court source. It stands out distinctly from sibling tools such as authenticate 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?

It gives clear usage context: no platform credentials are needed, queries are paid with prepaid credit, and the data is the official source accessible to citizens. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool does the same thing, so this is adequate.

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