Rede

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context about the two authentication paths and that calling with no args returns a login link, which is useful behavioral detail. Lacks explicit mention of side effects (e.g., storing token) but annotations cover safety.

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 pack substantial detail, but the structure is a bit dense. It front-loads the core action and then explains modes. No redundancy, but could be tightened.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameterفق, the description fully covers the usage scenarios . The output is a link or session token, which is implied. No further context needed.

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 provides no description coverage, but the description explains the token parameter clearly: it is the JWT to be passed for session-only login, and its absence triggers a link retrieval. This fully compensates for schema gaps.

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: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI via browser login and token. It distinguishes the two operational modes (config header vs. session token), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like 'connect'.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: recommends adding token to config for permanent connection, and describes the alternative session-based flow with or without a token argument. Clearly explains when to use each mode, effectively guiding agent decisions.

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 meaningful conditional behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that when credentials are missing, connect_url and per-install URLs are returned, and that a fully connected state returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds specific behavioral information. There is 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 parameterless, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the return behavior and conditional cases. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining both connected and missing-credential states.

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 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and further distinguishes itself by naming exact conditional outputs like authenticated:true and connect_url. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as authenticate and show_version.

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 as a status-checking tool by explaining what it returns in different connection states. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like authenticate, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 rich behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false): invoke runs one-off without installing, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout link when the wallet is empty (then retry), and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also discloses the installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. No contradiction with 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 single dense wall of text — hundreds of words with no paragraph breaks, bullet points, or front-loading of key info. While every sentence carries content, the run-on structure makes it hard to scan, and the prompt-library section is tacked onto the end without clear separation from the MCP flow. Given the tool's complexity, some length is justified, but the lack of structure hurts usability.

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 highly complex tool (14 actions, 23 params, two sub-domains, no output schema), the description covers the core flow, invoke edge cases, permission requirements, and the prompt library return behavior (shareable mcp.ai/p/<slug> link). It's reasonably complete, though it doesn't describe search/publish output formats or pagination behavior for the limit param.

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 — and it does a solid job on the key parameters: it maps action enum values to behaviors (search, describe, install, uninstall, subscribe, cancel, resume, report_bug, request_mcp, list_tools, invoke, search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt) and explains tool_id, arguments, mcp_id, and prompt-related params conceptually. However, with 23 undocumented parameters, some (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_targets) are only implied and not individually explained.

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 — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It uses specific verbs (search, describe, invoke, install) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (rede_*, connect, authenticate) which are unrelated domain tools. The scope is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly explains the core discovery flow ('action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile → invoke RUNS that tool') and gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' versus 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also separates the prompt library use case (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt) from MCP operations. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It does add context about the types of charges (débitos, tarifas, chargebacks) which informs the agent what to expect. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination limits, or how the date range filters are applied, leaving some behavioral gaps that the annotations don't cover.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key distinctions (open/closed). Every word serves a function, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration. This is exemplary conciseness—nothing extraneous, and the essential information is present in the first phrase.

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 four parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not state what the return data looks like (e.g., list of charge objects, fields, totals), how the date range is applied, or the meaning of 'size'. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like rede_conta or rede_extrato. The agent would struggle to know exactly what to expect and how to call it correctly beyond basic filtering.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It indirectly references start_date/end_date via 'no período' and status via 'abertas (OPEN) ou liquidadas (CLOSED)', but it does not explicitly explain the parameters, their formats, or the 'size' parameter at all. The description partially compensates for two of four parameters but leaves significant ambiguity, especially for size and date syntax.

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 provides charges/adjustments to the Rede account (debits, fees, chargebacks), filtered by open or settled status. It names a specific resource and scope, and the mention of OPEN/CLOSED aligns with the status enum. However, it lacks an explicit verb (list/fetch), and the distinction from siblings like rede_conta or rede_extrato is implied rather than stated, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 gives context about what data is included (period, status) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rede_conta, rede_extrato, or rede_vendas_listar. There are no exclusions or conditions for selecting this over other tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case. This is insufficient routing guidance.

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 context that it provides merchant and terminal details, but does not describe response format, pagination, or other behavior. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not rich.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy. It immediately states the core resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. There is zero waste.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (merchant and terminals). It mentions 'da conta' (of the account) and 'Portal Rede' to anchor context. It is complete for its simplicity, though a brief mention of response structure would push it higher.

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 input schema is empty and coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter information since there are none. The baseline score of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 resource as the merchant (ponto de venda) and terminals/maquininhas of the account, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rede_cobrancas (bills) and rede_extrato (statement). However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Obtém' or 'Lista'), reducing clarity slightly.

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 conditions, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over sibling tools like rede_vendas_listar or rede_recebiveis_agenda. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, authentication requirements, or return format specifics. It only reiterates the content of the statement, which is more about functionality than 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no filler, and the key information (what the statement contains) is front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema and zero parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not clarify the meaning of 'size', the required date format, or whether the parameters are mandatory. The tool's role among siblings could also be spelled out more explicitly.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions a period (implying start_date and end_date) and grouping by bank account, but it does not explain the 'size' parameter or the expected date format. Thus it partially compensates for the missing 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 it provides a statement of receipts/deposits for the Rede account within a period, grouped by day and bank account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rede_cobrancas (charges) and rede_conta (account), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 retrieving deposit statements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rede_cobrancas or rede_conta. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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 a useful behavioral detail – that the data is aggregated by day and includes the next receipt date – which goes beyond annotations, but it does not disclose pagination, response structure, or ordering. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key aggregation detail. There is no filler, though it omits necessary parameter 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 5 parameters, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level overview but leaves an agent without guidance on required filters, status values, or response behavior, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 by explaining parameters. It implicitly references the time period (start_date/end_date) and grouping (group_by=day), but it does not explain 'size', 'status', or the expected formats or constraints. The description adds only minimal value over the schema's bare property names.

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: a schedule of Rede's receivables showing when each sale is credited to the account, aggregated by day, including the next receipt date. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like rede_extrato (statement) or rede_cobrancas (collections), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 conditions, use cases, or contrast with sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name and context that this is for scheduled receivables.

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 useful context beyond that: it is a period-based listing that spans credit, debit, and Pix and returns NSU, brand, modality, terminal, status, and value. It does not, however, disclose pagination/limits behavior or any other operational traits.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Lista as vendas/transações') before detailing scope and returned fields. No filler or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description provides decent coverage of period, payment types, and return fields. Missing pieces are the semantics of 'size', clarity on payment_method, and comparison guidance toward rede_vendas_resumo, which leaves an agent partially informed.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'por período' maps to start_date/end_date and 'crédito, débito e Pix; modalidade' maps to modalities/payment_method. However, 'size' (a numeric parameter) and the precise distinction between modalities and payment_method are left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('vendas/transações da sua conta Rede') and adds scope by period, payment types, and returned fields. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'rede_vendas_resumo' — the distinction is left to the name ('listar' vs 'resumo') rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of the sibling 'rede_vendas_resumo' (summary) or any condition that would route an agent to one or the other, nor any exclusions or prerequisites such as prior authentication being required.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior of returning totals grouped by brand or day, which is useful context beyond annotations. No further side effects or limitations are disclosed, but the annotation coverage lowers the required bar.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose (aggregated summary) and includes the key differentiator (grouping options). Every word adds value.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits the 'modalities' parameter entirely, does not specify date formats, and provides no details about the response structure or potential limitations. An agent would need to guess on critical operational details.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explicitly maps 'por bandeira ou por dia' to the group_by parameter and mentions 'período' implying start_date and end_date. However, the 'modalities' parameter is entirely omitted, and no date format or value types are provided. It partially clarifies parameters but leaves a gap.

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 provides an aggregated summary of sales for a specific account (Rede) over a period, with totals grouped by brand or day. It uses the specific verb 'resumo' and distinguishes from the sibling 'rede_vendas_listar' by indicating it's an aggregate rather than a list.

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 implies that this tool is for aggregated summaries, and the grouping options (brand/day) suggest when it would be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'rede_vendas_listar' (which likely lists individual transactions). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, tracking ID) or any side effects. Since annotations already cover 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a key usage hint (conversation array) without unnecessary fluff. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter guidance.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter, the expected format of 'conversation' (string vs array), or what happens after reporting. For a feedback tool, it should clarify submission behavior and parameter usage.

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' but the schema defines 'conversation' as a string (likely JSON), not an array. It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or the format of 'message'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter formats and semantics.

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/feedback'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user feedback rather than account operations or version info. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it's not a 5.

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 this tool (when reporting bugs or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a hint about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds that it shows both 'MCP platform' and 'adapter' versions, which is useful specificity, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral characteristics such as output format, latency, or error conditions. No contradiction with 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 single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler, redundancies, or background. It is appropriately concise for a simple version-check tool.

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 of this low complexity, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It specifies both platform and adapter versions, which implies the return will include both. There is no output schema, so the description could theoretically explain the return format more fully, but given the trivial nature of a version display, this is sufficient. The strong annotations compensate for any minor gaps.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details, adding no unnecessary ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, redeem, or reporting tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: call it to view platform and adapter versions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., for debugging version mismatches) nor mention any alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool overlaps with version display, the context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the bare annotations. No contradiction exists.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and enumerates key result components efficiently.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is comprehensive. It specifies the exact nature of the returned information, and annotations cover safety aspects. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the agent can expect.

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 zero parameters, the schema carries no burden, and the description needs no parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't add or need any parameter info, so it fully meets the requirement.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version and authenticate, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context (inspecting toolkit state) without explicit alternatives or exclusions. While it doesn't name sibling tools or when to use it vs. them, the intent is unambiguous, and it's likely the go-to for state inspection.

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