MCP Câmara BR

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool 'sugere o melhor fluxo de ferramentas' (suggests the best tool flow), it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the suggestion comes in, whether it's interactive, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens when no suitable tools are found. For a guidance tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise with just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second states when to use it. There's zero wasted language and it's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity (analysis and suggestion function), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the purpose and usage well but doesn't address what the tool actually returns or how the suggestion mechanism works. For a guidance tool with no structured output information, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 100%, providing a clear description and examples for the 'objetivo' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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: 'Analisa o objetivo do usuário e sugere o melhor fluxo de ferramentas a usar' (Analyzes the user's objective and suggests the best tool flow to use). It specifies the verb 'analisa' (analyzes) and resource 'objetivo do usuário' (user's objective), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sugerir_ferramentas' which might have similar functionality.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use esta ferramenta quando não souber qual ferramenta escolher ou quiser evitar erros' (Use this tool when you don't know which tool to choose or want to avoid errors). This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives, addressing the agent's decision-making context directly.

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