arch-linux-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the return format ('list of matching pages with titles, snippets, and URLs') and emphasizing the tool's focus on Arch-specific documentation. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, which could be relevant for a search tool.

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 usage guidance and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information in a compact form, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (search operation with 2 parameters), annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and output format well. However, it could benefit from mentioning any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling to fully compensate for the lack of output schema.

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%, fully documenting both parameters (query and limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting tips or limit constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic value.

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 specific action ('Search the Arch Wiki for documentation') and resource ('Arch Wiki'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_aur' which searches a different resource. It explicitly mentions the output format ('list of matching pages with titles, snippets, and URLs'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 this tool ('Prefer Wiki results over general web knowledge for Arch-specific issues') and includes a concrete example ('Search for 'pacman hooks''). This directly addresses when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, offering clear context for selection.

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