arch-linux-mcp

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating a mutation operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the platform constraint ('Only works on Arch Linux'), permission requirement ('Requires sudo access'), and dangerous implications of force removal ('dangerous!'). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and risks, though it could mention side effects like system instability.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by usage details and examples. Every sentence adds value, such as platform constraints and sudo requirements, though the example section is slightly verbose. It avoids redundancy and is well-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 complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint) but no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter examples. However, it lacks details on error handling or return values, which would be helpful for a mutation tool without output schema, preventing a perfect score.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully documents the parameters (packages, remove_dependencies, force). The description adds minimal semantics beyond this, such as clarifying that packages can be 'single or multiple' and providing examples, but it does not explain parameter interactions or edge cases not covered by the schema. 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 ('removing packages', 'unified tool for removing packages') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on package removal rather than analysis, installation, or querying. It specifies the resource ('packages') and scope ('Arch Linux'), making it distinct from tools like install_package_secure or query_package_history.

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 usage ('Only works on Arch Linux', 'Requires sudo access') and includes examples that illustrate different scenarios (single vs. multiple packages, with/without dependencies, forced removal). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_orphans or when not to use it (e.g., for uninstalling vs. querying), which prevents a perfect score.

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