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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'related' means (e.g., by topic, by author, by legislative process), what format the results come in, whether there are limits on results, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it states the basic purpose, it doesn't explain what 'related' means in practice, what format the results take, or any behavioral constraints. Given the lack of structured data elsewhere, the description should provide more context about the tool's operation and output.

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 single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'ID da proposição.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal parameter documentation.

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 action ('Lista' - lists) and resource ('proposições relacionadas a uma proposição' - related propositions to a proposition), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'buscar_proposicoes' or 'detalhar_proposicao', which might also handle propositions in different ways.

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. With sibling tools like 'buscar_proposicoes' (search propositions) and 'detalhar_proposicao' (detail proposition), there's no indication of when this specific 'list related propositions' function is appropriate versus those other options.

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