senado-br-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists current members with roles, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Lista membros atuais de uma comissão') and adds clarifying detail ('incluindo cargo'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more information on what the return looks like (e.g., list format, role details), but it's not entirely incomplete for a simple listing 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sigla' documented as 'Sigla da comissão'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter formats, examples, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Lista membros atuais de uma comissão, incluindo cargo (presidente, vice, titular, suplente).' It specifies the verb ('Lista'), resource ('membros atuais de uma comissão'), and scope ('incluindo cargo'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_listar_comissoes' or 'senado_obter_comissao', which might list commissions themselves rather than their members.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a commission sigla), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'senado_listar_senadores' or 'senado_obter_senador'. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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