arch-linux-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about platform compatibility (Arch-only for cache_stats) and scope (critical paths for disk_usage), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe return formats, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an 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 extremely efficient - three sentences that each earn their place. The first establishes the tool's unified nature, the second enumerates the two actions with brief explanations, and the third provides crucial platform constraints. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the most important 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 read-only analysis tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context about what each action does and their platform limitations. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or output format, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, given the tool's relative simplicity, the description 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'action' parameter with its enum values. The description adds some semantic context by explaining what each action does ('check disk space for critical paths', 'analyze pacman package cache') and their platform constraints, but doesn't provide additional parameter details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 this is a 'Unified storage analysis tool' with two specific actions: 'disk_usage (check disk space for critical paths)' and 'cache_stats (analyze pacman package cache)'. It provides specific verbs and resources, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_system_info' or 'run_system_health_check' which might also provide storage-related information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when to use each action: 'disk_usage' works on 'any system' while 'cache_stats' is 'Arch only'. This gives practical guidance for selecting the appropriate action based on system type. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_system_info' for general system monitoring.

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