arch-linux-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing query operations. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the platform constraint ('Only works on Arch Linux') and behavioral details about query types and examples. However, it lacks information on rate limits, error handling, or output format.

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 core purpose, followed by query types and examples in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it efficiently conveys necessary information in a compact form.

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, rich schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and constraints, but lacks details on output format or error cases, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. It compensates well with examples.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing query_type options with examples and clarifying package_name usage, but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 ('querying package history') and resources ('pacman logs'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique domain (package history queries). It explicitly lists the four query types, making the scope unambiguous.

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 for when to use each query type with examples (e.g., 'query_type="package", package_name="docker" → when docker was installed'), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings. The examples effectively guide usage without exclusions.

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