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 the systemd-only limitation and the two specific diagnostic actions, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when actions fail. 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: scope declaration, action listing, and system limitation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The [MONITORING] tag helps with quick categorization.

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 diagnostic tool with good schema coverage and clear purpose, the description is reasonably complete. It covers scope, actions, and system requirements. The main gap is lack of output information (no output schema exists), but for a diagnostic tool with simple enum-based actions, this is less critical than for complex mutation tools.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description mentions the two action values but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining what 'failed_services' actually checks or what 'boot_logs' contains). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs 'Unified system diagnostics for systemd-based systems' with specific actions listed (failed_services, boot_logs). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on system diagnostics rather than package management, configuration analysis, or other system tasks present in the sibling list.

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: 'Works on systemd-based systems only' and lists the two specific actions available. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'run_system_health_check' or 'get_system_info' from the sibling list, which could provide overlapping functionality.

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