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. It implies a read-only operation by listing types, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The example types add some context, but key behavioral details are missing.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose with examples, second provides explicit usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, provides examples, and gives usage context. However, it lacks details on output format or potential limitations, leaving some gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when the description is adequate.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('todos os tipos de proposições legislativas'), including key attributes ('siglas e descrições'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'buscar_proposicoes' by focusing on metadata rather than actual propositions.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use para descobrir a sigla correta ao buscar proposições com buscar_proposicoes.' This directly states when to use this tool (to find correct acronyms) and references the alternative tool ('buscar_proposicoes') for the related action, offering clear context for tool selection.

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