Tribunal TRT7: Consulta Processual

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

It goes beyond annotations by explaining that token can be stored permanently via config header or used session-only, and that calling with no args returns a login link. This enriches the idempotent/read-only hints with practical behavior. 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 long, run-on sentence that packs many details together. While it is not excessively long, restructuring could improve readability. It earns a neutral score for being informative but not perfectly 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's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: how to authenticate permanently or per-session, and what to expect when called without arguments. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the 'token' parameter as a JWT and showing how to use it, including the no-argument case. It clarifies optionality and context beyond the bare 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 indicates this tool is for authenticating with the MCP.AI service from IDE agents, explaining the login flow with a browser and access token. It distinguishes the authentication purpose from sibling tools like 'connect', though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is slightly awkward but does not obscure meaning.

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 direct instructions on how to authenticate (configure header, pass token, or call with no args) but does not explicitly contrast when to use this vs. sibling tools like 'connect'. The usage context is implied rather than stated as a choice among 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so a description that merely said 'gets status' would be a 3. The description earns a 4 because it adds genuinely novel behavioral detail: the state-dependent response shape (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected; connect_url in the failure case). This discloses the tool's external-side effects and state transitions beyond what annotations convey, which is exactly what behavioral transparency asks for.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the happy path, and the third explains the fallback case. Every sentence earns its place and the response shapes are front-loaded. This is a model of restrained, efficient prose.

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, readonly status tool without an output schema, the description covers the two key response scenarios sufficiently. It would have been slightly more complete with a full field listing, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations confirming its read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, everything the agent realistically needs to invoke it correctly is present. The gap is minor (e.g., expected HTTP status codes or response types not described), which is why it's a 4, not a 5.

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, and the rubric sets the baseline at 4 for this case. There's nothing more the description could have added to clarify parameter intent since no parameters exist. The description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'). It explains the behavioral branch points (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) with concrete response fields. While it's clearly a connection status check, it doesn't explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', which limits 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 this is a status-checking tool distinct from 'authenticate' (which presumably initiates auth), but it never explicitly states 'when you need to check connection, use this' or names alternatives. The usage context is reasonably implied by describing return states, but an explicit note about when to prefer the sibling tools would have made this a 4.

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 remain minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: invoke works without installation, auth/payment link flows, mass-install behavior, and permission requirements for writes. It fully discloses side effects and error-handling paths without contradicting 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 long but densely packed with necessary information for a multi-action tool. It follows a logical flow: core flow, exceptions, permissions, prompt library. While not terse, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids comprehension for such a complex 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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major actions, user flows, permission constraints, payment/auth handling, and the additional prompt library feature. It even distinguishes installed vs. non-installed behaviors. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent to select and 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 has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the key action enum and relevant parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug, etc.) through the detailed flow. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason) remain lightly explained, leaving some ambiguity, though the core ones are covered.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace, serving as both a catalog and execution engine. It enumerates distinct functions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by its comprehensive role. The core flow is explicitly defined, making 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and contrasts with alternative actions like list_tools and subscribe. Also mentions prerequisites like admin rights for writes, and advises retrying after connect/checkout links.

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 communicate that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a small behavioral cue that the conversation array should contain recent messages for reproduction, but it does not explain side effects such as where the report goes or what response the caller should expect. This is adequate 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 only two sentences long and every sentence earns its place: the first states the tool's purpose, the second gives the key usage detail. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary wording.

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 relatively simple feedback-reporting tool with only three string parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and the most important context detail. Missing parameter explanations are already accounted for in parameter semantics, so the overall contextual package is reasonably complete.

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 for explaining the three parameters. It adds some meaning to 'conversation' by saying it should hold recent messages, but it does not explain 'message' or 'context'. With low schema coverage and 3 parameters, the description is insufficient to fully disambiguate parameter usage.

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 ('Report') and explicitly covers bugs, missing features, and feedback. It is distinct from sibling tools such as marketplace or tribunal tool names because it is unmistakably about filing a report.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use it ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and even gives a concrete usage instruction about including the conversation array for reproduction. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but no sibling tool offers this same feedback/reporting function, making the guidance strong.

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 well established. The description adds specific context about what versions are shown (platform and adapter), which is useful but does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as whether it requires authentication or returns any side effects. Given annotations cover 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?

A single concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 is fairly complete. It states exactly what versions are displayed. No additional behavioral nuances are missing for a version-check tool of this simplicity.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description appropriately clarifies that it shows versions, which is the only meaning needed. A baseline of 4 is warranted for zero-param tools.

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 the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. This is a clear verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from siblings that deal with authentication, marketplace, or bug reporting.

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 is for informational purposes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like toolkit_info which might also show version information. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is reasonably clear for a version-check 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 mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradiction; it complements the annotations with concrete details.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the full scope of the return value without redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the key return components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). It lacks explicit error-condition or format details, but for a simple read-only info tool, this is adequate.

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 schema provides no parameter details. Per instructions, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain params since there are none.

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 current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which have 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 implies this is a general-purpose tool to inspect the toolkit environment, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude any cases. Given the tool's simple informational nature)Skip, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 valuable context: it's hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, uses prepaid credits, and clarifies data privacy (LGPD) and that data is not confidential. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the operational and legal context, which is useful for the agent.

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 paragraph but contains multiple pieces of information: purpose, source, hosting, payment, data privacy. It's relatively concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured, and some sentences (like the LGPD note) might be considered extra but are relevant for compliance. Overall, it's efficient with no fluff.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no enums), the description covers the purpose, source, payment, and legal context. However, it lacks parameter details (especially 'grau') and doesn't describe the return format or any limitations. Since there's no output schema, the description should provide more on what the response contains, but it doesn't. It's adequate but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'numero_processo' implicitly by saying 'consulta processual', but it doesn't explain the format or semantics of the parameters. 'grau' is not mentioned at all. With two parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's property names, which are not self-explanatory (especially 'grau').

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: consulting procedural information from TRT7 (Brazilian labor court) in an official source. It specifies the resource (processo) and the action (consultar), and distinguishes it from generic tools by naming the tribunal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like other tribunal consult tools, but given the sibling list provided (which are generic platform tools), it stands out clearly.

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 context: it's for consulting official Brazilian sources, and it mentions payment via prepaid credits, which is a usage condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment model. The context is clear but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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