Tribunal TRT2: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT) - Processos Físicos

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the token can be provided once in config for a non-expiring session or per-call for a single session, and that no arguments will return a link. It doesn't reveal rate limits or detailed side effects, but for this tool, the behavior is well-covered.

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 bit run-on with a colon-heavy sentence but remains efficient, packing two use cases and a no-arg option into a single sentence. Every part adds value, though it could be broken into bullet points for better readability. Minor grammar quirks (e.g., 'in the browser') don't detract much.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and a single purpose, the description covers the essential scenarios: permanent config-based auth, session-based token input, and link retrieval with no args. It could mention error cases or what a user should expect after successful auth, but overall it's sufficiently 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?

The schema only provides a parameter named 'token' with no description. The description explicitly explains the token parameter: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and gives meaning to the otherwise bare 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 with MCP.AI for IDE agents, describing the specific flow of logging in via browser and copying an access token. It distinguishes between permanent (config header) and session-based authentication, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 concrete usage guidance by explaining two usage modes: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection or pasting it for a session-only login. It also mentions calling with no args to get the link. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace', though this isn't strictly necessary for a clear auth flow.

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 a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the shape of the response in each state, including authenticated, pending, and per-install URLs.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses two clear sentences to convey the tool's behavior. Every sentence adds relevant 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the key response fields and conditional states. No critical information appears to be 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return values instead.

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 related URLs, with specific conditional outcomes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, making its 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 explains the behavior under two conditions: when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like authenticate, but the context makes its use as a status-checking tool 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 only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, but the description discloses important behavior: invoke runs without installing, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains flags like installed_in_toolkit vs workspace, going well beyond baseline 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 lengthy but structured logically: marketplace core flow, invocation specifics, install vs invoke, billing and admin notes, and prompt library. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and each sentence adds value, though it could be split into clearer sections for readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain outcomes; it does so for key actions (invoke returns connect/checkout links, search flags installed status). It covers all 14 action types, permissions, and the prompt library, making it sufficiently complete for a tool of this 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?

Schema has 23 params with 0% description coverage, but the description maps the core 'action' values to their intended use (e.g., action=search, describe, invoke), and explains roles of mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields. It does not detail every parameter (e.g., cancel_reason, prompt_targets), but provides enough context for the main actions.

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 states the tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering both discovery and execution of MCPs, and also hosts a prompt library. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (auth, version, etc.) by outlining its core flow: search, describe, invoke, install, and the prompt actions.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explains the flow for each action. It also clarifies when to use search vs describe, and lists all action types with their purpose, including the prompt library.

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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral requirement of including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a ticket, sending an email) or authentication requirements.

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, with the first giving the purpose and the second providing a critical usage detail. There is no redundant or verbose 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 tool is simple, but there are gaps: the 'context' parameter is unexplained, the conversation string format is not clarified (though described as an array), and there is no indication of what happens after reporting (no output schema). With annotations present, it is adequate but not fully 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. It explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose (recent messages for reproduction) and implies 'message' is the report text, but it does not explain 'context'. Additionally, the description says 'conversation array' while the schema expects a string, creating ambiguity.

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.' The verb 'report' combined with the specific resources (bug, missing feature, feedback) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 by listing the use cases ('bug, missing feature, feedback') and instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so the context is enough.

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 clear. The description adds specificity by stating that both platform and adapter versions are shown, which is useful context beyond the generic tool name. No contradictions exist.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 trivial read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. There are no missing behavioral or contextual details that would hinder an agent's ability to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all parameters. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'Show' and identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which serve entirely 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?

The description implies usage: call this tool when you need version information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of competing version-related siblings, implied usage is sufficient but not explicitly guided.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds value by listing the specific information returned, which is not covered by 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, concise sentence that effectively summarizes the tool's output without unnecessary detail or fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns, covering all key elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This provides sufficient context for a caller.

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 the baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately does not describe parameters because 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This verb-resource pairing is specific and distinct 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 implies usage for retrieving toolkit status, which is inherently different from other tools that perform actions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is self-explanatory given the context of sibling 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid via prepaid credit, and that the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing cost and data responsibility, though it does not describe the return format.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose, but includes legal disclaimers and platform details that may be extraneous for invocation. It is not overly long, but could be trimmed to be more concise without losing essential 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?

The description covers purpose, cost, and compliance, but lacks parameter semantics and expected output. Given the lack of an output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete for full agent understanding, though the simple nature of the tool partially compensates.

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 mention any parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome) nor clarify their usage or formats. The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names without additional guidance.

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 consultation (consulta) for a Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT) from Tribunal TRT2, specifically for physical processes, from an official source. The verb and resource are explicit, and no sibling tools are similar, making it 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 context on when to use: it is a paid query on official Brazilian sources and notes it is not confidential. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives; given the siblings are unrelated platform tools, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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