MCP Câmara BR

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('obtém'), implying it is likely non-destructive, but does not confirm this or address other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the parenthetical clarification adds useful context without redundancy. Every part of the description earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a simple read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, it provides a basic understanding but leaves gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

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 'id' documented as 'ID do evento' (ID of the event). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers the parameter meaning without extra value from the description.

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: 'Obtém a pauta de um evento (proposições a serem discutidas/votadas)' which translates to 'Gets the agenda of an event (propositions to be discussed/voted on).' It specifies the verb 'obtém' (gets) and the resource 'pauta de um evento' (agenda of an event), with additional clarification in parentheses. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detalhar_evento' or 'votacoes_evento', which might provide overlapping or related information about events.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over 'detalhar_evento' for event details or 'votacoes_evento' for voting information. Without such guidelines, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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