Diagnóstico do MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds what they cannot: it consumes no credits nor usage limit, the full run costs ~30 s, it only opens and closes menus, nothing is generated or altered, and a truncated run reports which part was skipped. It even names where failures surface (src/seletores.ts).

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 core purpose, cost-free guarantee and trigger condition are front-loaded, and the dense detail that follows is mostly load-bearing. There is mild repetition between 'Não gasta créditos nem o limite de uso' and 'nada é gerado nem alterado', and the completo=true explanation is spread across two long sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does: it names which item changed, where that item lives in src/seletores.ts, and which part was missing on truncation. For a read-only diagnostic with a 3-param, fully documented schema, nothing an agent needs is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by tying completo=true to the ~30 s full-screen sweep and by restating the parte values (notebooklm, flow, drive) in the timeout fallback. It omits the enum's fourth value 'tudo' and says nothing about how the 'notebook' parameter is chosen beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and full scope: it checks login, NotebookLM and Flow (screens, menus, balance) and reports what is working or broken. That clearly separates it from the many action siblings (flow_gerar_video, notebook_criar, etc.) and from narrow status tools, since this is the aggregate health check.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use quando algo der erro ou parecer que o Google mudou a tela', and a recovery path when the call times out (re-call with parte). It never names which cheaper sibling to use for a narrow check (login_status, flow_status, flow_creditos), so the alternative selection is left implicit.

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