DETRAN RO: Veículo

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

Reveals that the tool initiates a browser login, returns a link when called without args, and accepts a JWT token for authentication. It adds context beyond annotations (which indicate mutation and idempotency) by explaining the two workflows, though it doesn't mention token expiration or validation side effects.

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 compact sentences cover purpose, usage modes, and parameter semantics. No fluff; every clause contributes actionable information. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: how to authenticate permanently or temporarily, what input is expected, and the no-args behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, and that calling without args returns the login link. It provides functional meaning but not full detail on token format or constraints, hence not a 5.

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 explicitly states the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (authenticate/login) with clear outcomes: obtaining a link or submitting a token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing solely on authentication for IDE agents.

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?

Describes when to use each method: adding token to config for permanent, non-expiring connection vs pasting for session-only. It also clarifies that calling with no args yields the login link, providing explicit usage contexts and alternatives.

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

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

With annotations already establishing this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description adds meaningful context by detailing the exact response shape under different conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations to clarify runtime behavior.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by clear conditional details. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 status tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the behavioral and output aspects. The two conditionals (all providers connected vs missing credentials) explain the return values comprehensively. There are no gaps in context.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly does not introduce any parameter information, as none exist. No additional semantic explanation is needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication action. The conditional scenarios (authenticated vs missing credentials) further specify the tool's core function.

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 usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it. The context of returning status and URLs makes the intended use inferable but not explicit.

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

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

The description adds essential behavior beyond annotations: it is a paid service ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), requires no platform credentials, and includes LGPD data control responsibilities. These details complement the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, providing crucial context for agents to inform users about costs and legal obligations.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the purpose, then payment, then legal context. It uses three clear sentences without redundancy, though it could be slightly improved by integrating parameter hints. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and charging model, but fails to explain what data will be returned or how to construct a request (e.g., that 'placa' is required). The lack of parameter documentation makes it incomplete, though the tool's simplicity reduces the overall complexity.

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 schema has zero description coverage for both 'placa' and 'renavam', and the description does not mention these parameters at all. Agents have no guidance on how to fill them, what format is expected, or why 'placa' is required, leaving a critical gap in parameter understanding.

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 performs a vehicle query ('consulta') on official DETRAN RO sources, specifying the resource (vehicle) and action (query). It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace by providing a precise domain.

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 hints at usage for official Brazilian vehicle queries and mentions payment, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide conditions for non-use. There are no direct exclusions or comparisons, so the guidance is implied but not articulated.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the description. The description adds substantial behavioral context: invoke works without installing, returns connect/checkout links, one-off installs happen behind the scenes, and prompt library links open without login. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense wall of text covering many concepts without paragraph breaks or bullets. While it is information-rich and front-loaded with the core flow, the lack of structure makes it harder to scan. Some redundancy exists (e.g., "list_tools lists what is callable right now" after already explaining the catalog).

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 (23 params, no output schema), the description is unusually thorough. It covers the main flow, auth/payment edge cases, permission requirements, the prompt library, and sibling alternatives. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what 'resume' does, exact behavior of list_tools), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the action enum and core flow (search/describe/invoke), and touches on mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt_* fields implicitly. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, etc.) are left unexplained, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace, a catalog of MCPs/tools and a way to run them. It specifies multiple concrete use cases ("find an MCP that does X", "consulta um CPF") and distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the full catalog/execution/prompt-library scope.

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 guidance on when to use each action (e.g., "prefer invoke for a single/occasional use", "Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT"), how to handle auth/payment (connect link, checkout link), and notes that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also differentiates invoke from install and list_tools from search/describe.

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

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds context about including conversation for reproduction, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., response format, whether it's stored) or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence provides a specific usage hint. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description is mostly adequate. However, the mismatch between 'conversation array' and the schema's string type, plus lack of explanation for 'context', leaves some gaps. Given the simplicity, a 3 is fair.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'conversation array' and 'recent messages' but doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or the format of 'conversation' (it's a string, not an array, despite the description saying 'array'). This is a slight mismatch, but the description does add some meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user feedback rather than authentication or vehicle queries.

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 when to use it (when reporting bugs or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a usage hint ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful distinction that it returns both platform and adapter versions, which is extra context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that fully conveys the tool's behavior with no filler or redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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 has no parameters, a rich annotation set, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: version details for platform and adapter.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description carries no burden to explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 verb ('Show') and the resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'toolkit_info' and 'marketplace' by focusing solely on version information.

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 purpose is so self-evident that usage context is clear: an agent should call this to check versions. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but none are needed for such a simple tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing exactly what information is returned, which is helpful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions detected.

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 packs multiple specific items (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) without redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it returns. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or prerequisites, but for a read-only informational tool this is not a significant gap.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the schema is fully covered (no properties). No additional parameter explanation needed.

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 returns toolkit state with specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate' by being an informational read-only tool.

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 use cases—when you need to inspect the current toolkit setup or connection status—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the read-only nature and zero parameters, the intended context is clear enough.

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