aya_mcps_catalogo_referencia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral clarity by stating the tool does not install anything, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It does not describe output format or detail, but for a zero-parameter read-only catalog tool, this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 short sentences in Portuguese convey the scope, the reference to v0.2, and the critical non-installation behavior with zero filler. It is appropriately front-loaded: the main action comes first, and the exclusionary note immediately follows.

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 annotations that establish safety and idempotence, the description is largely complete. It clearly names the content domain (researched MCPs and patterns) and the non-installation guarantee. The only minor gap is that it does not mention what the returned list will contain structurally, but with no output schema and a simple catalog purpose, this is not a serious omission.

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 zero parameters, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. The description could not add parameter-level meaning; a baseline 4 is appropriate. The text clarifies the subject ('MCPs abertos pesquisados' and 'padroes') without needing parameter details.

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 a specific verb-resource pair and scope: it lists open researched MCPs and the patterns that inspire/integrate v0.2. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying it installs nothing. It is not a tautology and an agent can tell it apart from sibling MCP tools like aya_mcps_classificar or aya_mcps_listar_permitidos.

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 implies this tool is for browsing/inspecting MCP research and patterns, and explicitly says it does not install anything, which is useful exclusionary guidance. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, such as when to prefer aya_mcps_listar_permitidos or aya_mcps_recomendar_capacidade.

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