senado-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details (a read operation) but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the 'sigla' is invalid), rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned data. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('Obtém detalhes de uma comissão') and adds specific details ('incluindo presidente, vice-presidente e finalidade'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at the return content, but lacks details on behavioral traits and output format, which are important for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 'sigla' parameter well-documented in the schema (including an example). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'sigla' is used to identify a commission. Given the 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 with a specific verb ('Obtém' - gets/obtains) and resource ('detalhes de uma comissão' - details of a commission), and specifies what details are included (president, vice-president, purpose). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_listar_comissoes' or 'senado_membros_comissao', but the focus on detailed information for a specific commission is reasonably clear.

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 sibling tools like 'senado_listar_comissoes' (which likely lists commissions) or 'senado_membros_comissao' (which might provide member details), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a commission acronym. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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