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 behavioral context beyond this: it warns about AUR packages being 'user-produced and potentially unsafe,' describes the return format ('package info including votes, maintainer, and last update'), and mentions 'smart ranking.' However, it doesn't detail pagination or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 the core purpose, includes a warning, specifies return values, gives usage guidelines, and provides a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with essential information.

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 (search with ranking and safety considerations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, warnings, return format, and usage guidelines. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the structure of returned package info (e.g., fields like version, dependencies). This minor gap prevents 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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (query, limit, sort_by). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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: 'Search the Arch User Repository (AUR) for packages with smart ranking.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Arch User Repository packages'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_official_package_info' by focusing on user-produced AUR packages rather than official repositories.

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 versus alternatives: 'Always check official repos first using get_official_package_info.' It also gives a concrete use case: 'Before installing 'spotify', search AUR to compare packages...' This clearly defines the tool's role in the workflow relative to siblings.

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