Tribunal TRT22: Consulta Processual

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the two authentication modes (permanent vs session-only) and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not describe side effects, but annotations already indicate non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description is consistent with that.

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 somewhat rambling and includes extraneous branding ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and multiple clauses. It conveys necessary information but lacks a clean, front-loaded structure; it could be organized into clearer steps or bullet points.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers all relevant aspects: how to authenticate, two token-handling options, and the behavior of no-argument calls. It is complete for the 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 schema has only a single optional string parameter 'token' with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly explains that 'token' is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers the login-link retrieval, fully compensating for the 0% schema 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: authenticating the user by logging in through the browser and obtaining an access token. It provides specific steps and distinguishes the tool's role from siblings by focusing on the authentication flow.

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 detailed usage instructions: either configure the token in the server config for permanent access, pass the token as a parameter for session-only login, or call with no arguments to receive the login link. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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 conditional response details (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs) that help the agent anticipate outputs without contradicting 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 tight sentences lead with the core purpose and then cover the two meaningful states. Every clause adds information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the main connection states and expected fields. It could be slightly more explicit about partially connected scenarios, but the current coverage is sufficient for basic invocation decisions.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains behavior without needing to document parameter meanings, and the schema offers nothing to clarify beyond this.

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,' specifying a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on connection state rather than performing authentication or 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 provides clear contextual conditions: when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the conditional scenarios give meaningful guidance for selection.

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 description discloses important behavioral traits: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke works without installation and returns connect/checkout links if credentials or payment are needed, and install makes the MCP permanent. This goes beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provides useful side-effect context.

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 verbose and repetitive, with the same sentences repeated with minor variations (e.g., the core flow and the 'KEY' note are restated). It includes non-English words like 'pontualmente' and is presented as a run-on paragraph rather than a structured summary.

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 complexity of 23 parameters and multiple actions, the description provides only a high-level overview and lacks detailed instructions for each action (e.g., which parameters are required for each action, what the output looks like). It does not cover all actions like subscribe, cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp in sufficient depth.

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 has 23 parameters with 0% coverage, and the description does not map specific parameters to specific actions. While it mentions action names like search and describe, it does not clarify the purpose of fields like prompt_body, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, or request_details. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail.

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 tool as a marketplace for discovering, describing, invoking, and installing MCPs and prompts. It distinguishes the core actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and mentions capability requests, though it is verbose and includes some irrelevant repetition.

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 guidance by explaining when to use invoke (one-off) versus install (permanent), and mentions that it covers capability requests. It also clarifies that prompt-related actions are handled via search_prompts, get_prompt, and publish_prompt, giving some differentiation.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it sends feedback and includes conversation for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, rate limits, or that it's a write operation). The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't add much beyond what annotations imply. With idempotentHint=true, the description could clarify that repeated submissions are safe, but it doesn't.

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 purpose. The second sentence provides a specific usage instruction. No fluff, but it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance. Still, it's 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 minimal annotations. The description covers the purpose and hints at the conversation parameter but doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or the expected format of 'conversation' (JSON string). For a feedback tool, it's relatively simple, but the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral details (e.g., what happens after submission) makes it incomplete. It's 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'conversation array' but the schema defines 'conversation' as a string with default '[]', which is ambiguous. The description says 'Include the conversation array' but doesn't explain the format or that it's a JSON string. It also doesn't explain 'context' or 'message' beyond what the schema provides. The description adds some meaning for 'conversation' but not for 'context' or 'message'. Given 0% coverage, this is a 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.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug/feature/feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user feedback rather than authentication, marketplace, or tribunal processes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools, but given the sibling list, it's clear enough.

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 it (when reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a usage hint: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which gives context for effective use. No 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?

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but this is already covered by annotations, so no extra transparency is contributed.

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 with no unnecessary words. It directly conveys the purpose without verbosity.

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 and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It is complete for its simple functionality, and no further explanation is necessary.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 3 applies given high schema 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 function: displaying current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools such as authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve 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 usage context is clear (obtaining version information), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since no alternative tool provides version info, the implication is straightforward, but it lacks explicit 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is established. The description adds useful context about what state is returned, but does not disclose additional operational details such as whether any network calls are made or whether the state could be stale.

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 that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then efficiently lists the included details with a colon and comma-separated items. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

This is a simple, parameterless, read-only introspection tool with strong annotations and no output schema. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and result contents, and the sibling context does not expose any missing usage requirements. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description meaningfully explains what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic content, earning the baseline score for no-parameter tools.

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') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what information is provided: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or authenticate by describing the scope of the introspection.

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 inspect the current toolkit state, which provides usable context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as show_version for version-specific information, leaving usage guidance partially 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?

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the service is paid (prepaid credits), hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and clarifies data control and LGPD compliance. These are important behavioral traits not covered by the readOnly/idempotent hints, adding substantial value.

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, coherent paragraph that leads with the primary function and then provides operational and legal context. It is not overly verbose, but the information about payment and LGPD could be separated for better scannability. Overall, it is concise and structured adequately for a read-only tool.

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 lacks information about the expected input format (e.g., what 'grau' means) and the nature of the output (e.g., case status, parties, timeline). Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains, but it does not. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's full 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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of the parameters 'grau' or 'numero_processo'. The user must infer that 'numero_processo' is the process number, but 'grau' remains undefined. With no compensating explanation, parameter understanding is left entirely to the schema, which itself lacks descriptions, so this is a severe 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: 'Consulta Processual' (procedural consultation) for TRT22, querying official Brazilian sources. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate and connect, which are platform utilities, so there is no ambiguity about its role.

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 context on when to use the tool (to consult official court data) and mentions practical aspects like payment and lack of credentials, but it does not explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives. Since the siblings are unrelated, the context is clear enough without explicit exclusions.

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