arch-linux-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses that 'since_update' is Arch-only, implying platform-specific behavior, and hints at the tool's discovery nature with '[DISCOVERY]'. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or output format, which would enhance transparency. 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 tool's purpose and actions, using only three sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: the first introduces the tool and actions, the second explains each action's use case, and the third specifies system constraints. It is appropriately sized and efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context like system constraints. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be beneficial since there's no output schema. With annotations covering safety, it's sufficient but not fully comprehensive for an agent invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (action, limit, since_date) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning the actions and system constraints, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('fetching', 'get', 'find') and resources ('news from Arch Linux'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_archwiki or search_aur by focusing on system news rather than documentation or packages. It explicitly lists three distinct actions (latest, critical, since_update), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 each action: 'latest' for recent news, 'critical' for news requiring manual intervention, and 'since_update' for news since the last system update. It also specifies system constraints: 'Works on any system for latest/critical, Arch only for since_update,' clearly indicating when-not scenarios and prerequisites, which helps in selecting this tool over alternatives like check_updates_dry_run or diagnose_system.

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