arch-linux-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety aspect. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool only works on Arch Linux systems, requires a specific package (pacman-contrib), and describes what the operation shows ('pending updates' with package details and sizes). This provides useful behavioral context that annotations alone don't convey.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose and constraints, the second provides usage guidance. Every phrase adds value - the lifecycle tag, system specificity, package requirement, safety note, and clear when-to-use guidance. There's zero wasted text.

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 tool with readOnlyHint annotation but no output schema, the description provides excellent context: it specifies the operating system constraint, package dependency, safety profile, and what information the tool returns. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the output format, but given the simple nature of the tool and good annotations, this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately acknowledges this by not attempting to describe nonexistent parameters, instead focusing on the tool's operational context and constraints. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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 specific action ('Check for available system updates without applying them'), the resource ('system updates'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's a dry-run operation for Arch Linux systems. It explicitly contrasts with actual update tools like 'install_package_secure' or 'remove_packages' through its 'without applying them' phrasing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Before running system updates, check what packages will be upgraded and their sizes'), specifies prerequisites ('Requires pacman-contrib package'), and implicitly indicates when not to use it (when you want to actually apply updates, which would require different tools). The context is clear and actionable.

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