autoremoveAptPackages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that packages are removed, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether packages are uninstalled permanently), prerequisites (e.g., need to run 'updateAptPackages' or 'removeAptPackage' first), or the outcome when no such packages exist. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it could be slightly improved by noting that it only affects automatically installed packages and is typically safe to run. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a no-parameter utility tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description covers the absence of parameters implicitly. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies when there are 0 parameters, as no parameter documentation is needed.

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 that the tool removes packages which were automatically installed as dependencies and are now no longer needed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'removeAptPackage' which targets specific packages, and 'installAptPackage' which installs packages. The verb 'remove' and resource 'automatically installed packages' are specific and 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 implies usage when packages installed as dependencies are no longer needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'removeAptPackage' or 'holdAptPackage'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or common scenarios, though the condition 'no longer needed' provides some context.

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