PkgSeek Linux Intelligence

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the classification output (active, nearing EOL, unsupported), but does not disclose details like data sources, thresholds, or return format.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key context.

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?

With no output schema and 4 parameters, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how parameters affect the result. It does not explain the meaning of the boolean and integer parameters, nor the output structure, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 maps 'distro' and 'release' to 'Linux distribution release', but fails to explain 'fail_within_days' and 'allow_security_support'. The term 'CI policy' hints at their role but does not clarify their specific 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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('Linux distribution release') with clear outcome categories (active, nearing EOL, unsupported) and context ('under a CI policy'), making its purpose distinct from siblings like get_distro_lifecycle or compare_distro_releases.

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 phrase 'under a CI policy' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer the context.

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 disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific comparison dimensions but does not disclose behavior like default limits, filtering semantics, or output format. 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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and scope.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It omits parameter semantics, filtering options, and any contextual details about what the output contains, leaving critical 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters from, to, distro, limit, query, or change. The phrase 'package additions, removals and version changes' loosely maps to some change enum values but does not clarify required arguments or filter behavior.

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 'Compare package additions, removals and version changes between two releases,' specifying a concrete action and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_distros and compare_package_versions by focusing on release-to-release package changes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_distros or compare_package_versions. The description only states what it does without exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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 that the comparison focuses on installation names and commands, but it does not disclose output format, data source, or potential limitations beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence of 12 words, starting with the action verb 'Compare.' It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information—every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description gives the core purpose but lacks information about the output format or any usage notes. Without an output schema, the agent cannot anticipate what the response contains, though the tool's simplicity mitigates this gap somewhat.

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 clarify the 'tool' parameter. It partially does via 'for a tool,' indicating the parameter is the software tool to compare. However, it doesn't specify whether it's a package name, binary name, or provide examples or further constraints beyond the schema pattern.

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 the specific verb 'Compare' and identifies the resource as 'installation names and commands for a tool across Linux distributions.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_distro_releases (which compares distro releases) and get_tool (which retrieves tool info).

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 the tool should be used when a cross-distro comparison of install names/commands is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as resolve_install or compare_package_versions. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than 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?

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'across distributions' scoping constraint, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose specific behavioral details such as output format, potential latency, or network dependencies.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains zero redundant words and quickly conveys the tool's 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?

For a simple read-only comparison tool with one parameter, the description is adequate. It defines the scope and purpose clearly, and the annotations cover safety. The lack of an output schema means a brief note on return format could improve completeness, but it is not essential given the 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 schema has one parameter 'name' with pattern and length constraints but no description text. The description refers to 'a package's,' which implies that 'name' is the package name, adding some semantic meaning. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates and does not explicitly document the parameter.

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 action ('compare') and resource ('a package's versions and repositories') with a specific scope ('across distributions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_package (which retrieves package info) and compare_distros (which compares distributions).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name. No mention of scenarios, 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it produces 'install guidance' rather than performing installation, which is a useful behavioral nuance, but no further details about limitations or edge cases are provided.

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 filler. It front-loads the core action and outcome, making it immediately scannable.

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?

With four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify how optional parameters (distro, source, release) affect the diagnosis, nor does it detail the output format beyond a vague mention of 'packages and install guidance'. This is insufficient for a tool with this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It only implies the 'error' parameter via the mention of error types, but says nothing about 'distro', 'source', or 'release'. This is a critical 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 uses a specific verb 'turn' and identifies the exact resource: package-not-found or command-not-found errors, resulting in packages and install guidance. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explain_command or suggest_fix by focusing on error diagnosis.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when encountering a package-not-found or command-not-found error. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'The command is never executed,' which is a stronger behavioral guarantee than the generic read-only hint. It also mentions the use of a 'knowledge base,' giving context about the underlying data source. No contradictions 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a critical safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic 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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, clear purpose), and annotations are rich. However, the description does not explain what the output looks like (no output schema), nor does it clarify parameter semantics. For an explanation tool, the nature of the response (e.g., text explanation) is important context that is missing. The description is adequate but leaves gaps that the schema and annotations do not fill.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. The schema defines 'command' and 'distro' but does not explain their meaning, expected format, or relationship. The description's omission of parameter details fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names and patterns alone.

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 function: 'Explain and statically inspect a command' using the 'Command Doctor knowledge base.' It also explicitly notes the command is never executed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that might run or modify commands (e.g., suggest_fix, lint_command). This is a specific verb-resource pairing with clear differentiation from siblings.

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 the tool: when you need an explanation or static inspection of a command. The safety guarantee 'The command is never executed' provides a clear context cue for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'trust and execution guardrails' and 'token-efficient', which hint at behavioral traits, but these terms are vague and not elaborated. The description does not meaningfully increase transparency 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 single sentence, front-loaded with the main action 'Get a token-efficient context pack'. It is concise and free of filler, though its vagueness limits the value of its brevity.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain what the context pack contains, how the parameters affect the result, or what the response looks like. The annotations cover only the safety profile, not the tool's behavior.

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 must compensate for missing parameter information. However, it mentions none of the three parameters (tool, distro, locale) and gives no hints about their purpose or formats. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of how to populate the call.

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 gets a 'token-efficient context pack' for an agent, which is a specific resource, but the resource is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools that also provide focused information. The verb 'get' is clear, but the object 'context pack' lacks concreteness, leaving the tool's exact purpose unclear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions 'for an agent' as an audience, but does not explain circumstances, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any comparison to sibling tools, the agent has no basis for choosing this 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral context that the data is 'cached,' implying potentially stale or non-authoritative results, which goes beyond the 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and object. It contains no unnecessary information and is appropriately brief for a simple 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value, but 'lifecycle facts' is vague and does not specify the structure or types of facts. The tool's complexity is low and annotations are strong, but the lack of clarity on the output and the cached nature leaves uncertainty for the agent.

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% and the description does not elaborate on the 'distro' parameter. The name suggests a Linux distribution identifier, but no format, examples, or meaning beyond the schema's pattern are provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 ('List') and resource ('cached lifecycle facts') with a clear object ('a Linux distribution'). The word 'cached' distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'check_release_lifecycle', indicating it reads stored data rather than performing a live check.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The term 'cached' implies a distinction from live checks, but no sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned. The description does not give context on when this tool should be chosen.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete return content (metadata, dependencies, files, vulnerability evidence), which provides useful context beyond the 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?

A single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No wasted words and clear front-loading of the verb and primary object.

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 description lists what is returned, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it lacks parameter guidance and optional qualifiers like repo/source/release, leaving the tool partially explained for a 5-parameter operation.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings. The phrase 'for one distribution' hints at the distro parameter, but name, repo, source, and release are left undefined. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: package metadata, dependencies, files, and vulnerability evidence for one distribution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_package_history or compare_package_versions.

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 a single distribution but provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings such as compare_package_versions or get_package_history are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the tool's scope.

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 the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the 'indexed' qualifier, implying it only covers indexed packages, but provides no additional behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or coverage limitations.

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 fluff. It is efficient, but the extreme brevity leaves out essential details that would make it more helpful. Still, it exercises good conciseness by avoiding redundancy with annotations.

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, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'history' (e.g., timestamps, versions, changelogs) or how the returned data is structured. The annotations cover safety but not operational context, leaving the agent under-informed about expected inputs and outputs.

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%, and the description provides no information about the meaning of parameters like 'name', 'distro', 'source', or 'release'. Without any semantic guidance, the agent cannot infer what values to supply or how they affect the output. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema 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 identifies the tool's action (Trace) and resource (indexed package version history), with a specific use case (regression investigation). It distinguishes from siblings like get_package or compare_package_versions by emphasizing 'history', though it doesn't explicitly name 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 phrase 'for regression investigation' implies a contextual usage, suggesting when this tool would be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, 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 annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description's 'Read' is consistent but adds no new behavioral information; it lists the data points but doesn't disclose any side effects, performance characteristics, or dependencies.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and 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?

While the operation is simple, the description fails to specify return format or how the parameter influences results. There is no output schema, so the description should provide more detail on 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?

The sole parameter 'freshness_hours' is not explained in the description. Its purpose and effect on results are unclear; the schema provides constraints but no 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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'repository health', specifying the key aspects: freshness, package counts, and indexing health. This uniquely identifies the tool's function among a broad set of sibling tools.

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 such as search_packages or get_distro_lifecycle. The description provides no context about when this is the right choice, making it hard for the agent to decide.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds the content of the returned record (commands, flags, distribution mappings), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like data source semantics, error behavior, or return structure. Minimal added context beyond 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 gets straight to the point. No redundant or filler 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description lists the main record components, but it leaves 'sourced' and 'distribution mappings' vague. It does not cover potential edge cases or return format, though the low complexity somewhat mitigates this.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'tool' parameter or its format. The parameter name and schema pattern provide some self-evident meaning, but the description does not add further semantic detail to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 action ('Get') and specific resource ('sourced tool record') and enumerates the contained elements ('commands, flags and distribution mappings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_package or explain_command.

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 you need tool record details) but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or comparison to related tools such as search_tools or get_context. Usage context is implied 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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already declare it non-destructive, and the description adds useful context: 'cached' indicates data may be stale, and 'distribution-aware affected-package evidence' hints at distribution-specific behavior. This goes beyond the 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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without filler words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the return value contains. It mentions 'record and evidence' but is vague about the exact structure or how distribution-awareness manifests. The tool is simple (2 params, read-only) so this is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. However, it only mentions 'CVE or CNNVD' which loosely maps to the id/database params but does not explain their specific purpose or relationship. The description adds minimal value over 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 a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('cached CVE or CNNVD record') and adds a distinctive qualifier ('distribution-aware affected-package evidence'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vulnerabilities, which likely searches rather than fetches by ID.

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 phrase 'Get a cached CVE or CNNVD record' implies this tool is for retrieving a known vulnerability identifier, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like search_vulnerabilities. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, only an implied use case.

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 clear. The description adds the notion of 'curated' results but doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like output format or potential multiple results. 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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context (when to choose this over siblings) and return behavior (single result vs. list), leaving some ambiguity.

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 no description for the 'binary' parameter (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'executable name' clarifies what the parameter represents, which compensates for the schema gap. However, it doesn't specify whether a full path or just the name is expected.

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 action ('Reverse') and object ('executable name') and the outcome ('curated tools and packages'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_tools, query_file_provides, or get_tool. It only states what it does, not the context in which it should be preferred.

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=false. The description adds 'The command is never executed,' reinforcing the read-only nature, but provides no other behavioral details such as output format or error handling. This offers minimal additional transparency 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word 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?

The description states the tool's purpose and the safety guarantee of non-execution, which are essential. However, it omits details about the output format (no output schema) and the role of the optional 'distro' parameter, leaving some gaps for correct 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'distro' parameter at all. It only implicitly refers to 'command' via 'shell command', leaving the agent without guidance on how 'distro' influences the linting process.

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 action ('statically inspect'), the target ('shell command'), and the specific scope ('unsupported flags and portability issues'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explain_command by emphasizing static analysis and non-execution.

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 when checking a command for portability issues, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by stating it 'report[s] missing or ambiguous replacements', giving insight into the tool's output and success criteria. It does not detail side effects, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 main action and outcome. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or 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?

With no output schema and five required parameters, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the return format, how 'ambiguous' is determined, whether exact matches are also reported, or any prerequisites. The tool is complex, so the description should provide more detail to be fully actionable.

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 'packages' and 'distribution release' but does not clarify the distinct roles of source_distro, source_release, target_distro, and target_release, nor their expected formats. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema's 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 uses a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('packages from one distribution release to another') with a clear outcome ('report missing or ambiguous replacements'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_distro_releases and compare_package_versions, which focus on raw comparisons rather than migration mapping.

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 a clear use case: planning package migrations between distribution releases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for similar tasks, so it stops short of full exclusions 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic action, such as search scope, result limitations, or performance characteristics. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose without filler, fitting the concise style expected for a simple query 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 simple one-parameter query tool, the description covers the fundamental purpose and parameter meaning, and annotations provide safety context. However, it omits any mention of what the output looks like or what package sources are searched, leaving some context gaps that could affect correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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. It does explain that the 'path' parameter can be a command name or filesystem path, which gives some meaning. However, it lacks details like path format (absolute/relative), case sensitivity, or whether wildcards are supported, leaving the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 ('Find') and resource ('packages') and explicitly states the scope: packages that contain a command or filesystem path. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_package' or 'search_packages'.

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 the usage scenario (when you need to know which package provides a given command or path) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives might be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as network access or result structure. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the strong annotation coverage.

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 with a leading verb and no filler. Every word contributes meaning, efficiently conveying the tool's inputs and outputs.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and main outputs. It lacks an output schema, but the three result elements (package, binary, install command) are stated. Minor edge cases or error behavior are not required for 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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description names the two parameters ('tool' and 'distribution') and their roles. It does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or examples, leaving the distro pattern and tool naming assumptions somewhat vague. This partial compensation aligns with a 3.

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 action 'Resolve' and the specific resource combination ('a tool and distribution') with a defined output ('its package, real binary and install command'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool or identify_binary, which focus on subsets.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says what it does but not when it should be preferred, such as 'when you need the install command' or 'instead of get_tool.' Usage context is only implicit.

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 no further behavioral context such as result limits, filtering semantics, or pagination behavior, but it is consistent with 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 single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope, though it may be slightly under-specified for a 5-parameter 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?

With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description does not cover return values, default behaviors (e.g., limit default of 20), or how parameters interact. The single sentence leaves significant gaps for an agent needing to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only implies a 'query' for package names and distro/source as filters, but does not explain the 'limit' or 'release' parameters, nor their formats or limitations.

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 'search' and resource 'package names', with clear scope 'across repositories and distributions'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_package (which retrieves a known package) and compare_package_versions (which compares versions).

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 (e.g., get_package for a known package, compare_package_versions for version comparisons). It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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 non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'curated' qualifier, implying a non-exhaustive, hand-selected set of tools, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose result limits, query matching behavior, or 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?

The description is one short sentence (six words) that front-loads the action and resource. It is highly concise with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 search tool, the description is minimal but does not convey critical operational details: how matches are made, what result shape to expect, or any pagination/count limits. The annotations cover safety, but the functional context is incomplete for effective invocation.

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 a single 'query' string parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain how the query is interpreted (e.g., name search, keyword matching, tags) or any expected format. The agent is left to guess what to pass as the query.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'curated Linux command-line tools,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_packages (which searches packages) and get_tool (which retrieves a specific tool). The scope is well-defined.

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, exclusions, or related tools. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the single-sentence description.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the context that data is 'cached', implying potential staleness, and that filters are optional. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe return format or pagination.

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 of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every word adds value. No waste or 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 is a read-only search with five parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it specifies the data source (cached CVE/CNNVD) and the available filter types. It does not mention return format or pagination, but the word 'search' implies a list of matches, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It is not as complete as it could be (no alternative guidance), but it handles the core 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mentioning 'CVE or CNNVD' (database), 'distribution' (distro), and 'severity' filters, mapping to the key parameters. The 'search' action implies the query parameter, and limit is self-explanatory. It adds conceptual meaning beyond the bare schema names, though it does not detail every parameter.

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 'search' and the resource 'cached CVE or CNNVD records', with optional filters. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_vulnerability (which retrieves a specific record) and search_packages (which searches packages).

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 context of searching cached vulnerability records is clear, and the word 'cached' implies a distinction from live lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, lacking the 'when/when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explicitly stating 'The command is never executed,' which is more specific than the annotations. It also describes the style of output ('conservative, sourced'), going beyond structured metadata.

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 concise sentences, with the action verb first and a clear safety clarification. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is the main source of guidance. It covers purpose and safety but lacks details on return format, error behavior, or parameter constraints. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond implying 'command' relates to syntax. The optional 'distro' parameter is entirely omitted, leaving a significant gap in understanding how to set up a valid call.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('guidance for command syntax or portability problems'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explain_command or lint_command. The additional 'conservative, sourced' qualifier adds precision.

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 command syntax or portability issues, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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