arch-linux-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by describing a check/warning operation without implying mutation. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the 24-hour warning threshold and the 7-day stale condition for usage, though it doesn't detail output format or error handling. No contradiction with annotations 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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines. It's concise with no wasted words, though the '[MAINTENANCE]' tag is slightly redundant given the context. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient but not perfectly structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (simple check with no parameters), annotations (readOnlyHint), and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral thresholds, though it could clarify the output format (e.g., what 'warns' entails) to be fully comprehensive.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context about the tool's operation (checking synchronization time, warning thresholds) without redundancy, justifying a score above the baseline of 3 for zero-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check when package databases were last synchronized. Warns if databases are stale (> 24 hours).' It specifies the verb ('Check'), resource ('package databases'), and scope ('Arch Linux'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_updates_dry_run' or 'run_system_health_check' that focus on different aspects of system maintenance.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'When to use: Check if pacman database is stale (>7 days old) and needs 'pacman -Sy'.' It defines the specific condition (stale >7 days) and the alternative action ('pacman -Sy'), helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus other maintenance-related siblings.

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