linux_package_manager_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool actually runs commands or merely outputs them, nor does it mention prerequisites, side effects, or error behavior. The phrase 'Cross-translate' suggests translation, but it is ambiguous. This lack of behavioral clarity is a significant gap.

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 relatively concise but includes redundant text ('Menu ID: package_manager_commands. Package Manager Commands.') that adds little value. The key information is front-loaded, but the repetition wastes space. It is adequate but could be tighter.

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 complexity (5 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, return format, or behavioral details. The suggestion to use describe_tool implies the description alone is insufficient for full understanding.

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 input schema has 5 required parameters (operation, action, packages, from, to) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they relate to each other. For example, it mentions 'Install a package' but does not map to operation or action fields. This severely hinders correct usage.

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: 'Cross-translate package-manager commands across Linux distros and ecosystems'. It lists specific package managers (apt, dnf, yum, etc.) and actions (install, update, search, clean cache), making the verb-resource combination distinct. Among siblings, no other tool handles package manager translation, so it stands out clearly.

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 when to use the tool (when needing to translate package manager commands) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, which shifts some burden, but lacks direct usage boundaries.

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