arch-linux-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the fallback mechanism ('Uses local pacman if available, otherwise queries archlinux.org API'), which is crucial for understanding performance and data source reliability. It also specifies the return format ('version, dependencies, install size, and repository location'), though no rate limits or authentication needs are mentioned.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second explains implementation details, and the third provides usage guidance and an example. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and key details are front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return data. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or pagination details, but given the tool's simplicity and 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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the 'package_name' parameter as 'Exact package name'. The description adds minimal value by providing an example ('Example query: 'python''), but doesn't elaborate on format constraints or edge cases beyond what the schema implies.

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 verb ('Get information') and resource ('official Arch repository package') with specific scope (Core, Extra, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_aur' by emphasizing 'official packages over AUR' and from 'query_package_history' by focusing on current package metadata rather than historical data.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Always prefer official packages over AUR when available') and provides an alternative ('search_aur' for AUR packages). The '[DISCOVERY]' tag implies it's for initial package exploration, distinguishing it from installation or management tools like 'install_package_secure'.

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