arch-linux-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description clarifies that 'remove' action requires sudo access and includes a dry_run parameter for safety. It also explains that 'list' shows disk usage, which isn't covered by annotations. 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: it starts with a clear purpose statement, lists supported actions with constraints, and provides concise examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with essential information. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 constraints, and behavioral details. However, it doesn't fully describe the output format for the 'list' action (e.g., structure of returned data), which could be helpful since there's no output schema. Annotations provide some safety context but not full behavioral disclosure.

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 well. The description adds minimal extra semantics: it mentions that 'list' shows disk usage and provides usage examples for parameters. However, it doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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: 'Unified tool for managing orphaned packages (dependencies no longer required). Supports two actions: 'list' (show orphaned packages) and 'remove' (remove orphaned packages).' It specifies the verb ('manage'), resource ('orphaned packages'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'remove_packages' by focusing specifically on orphaned dependencies.

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: 'Only works on Arch Linux. Requires sudo access for removal.' It also distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives by specifying it's for orphaned packages, unlike sibling tools such as 'remove_packages' which likely handle general package removal. The examples further clarify usage scenarios.

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