Package Info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral hint — that data comes from apt-cache show/policy, implying a read-only local cache lookup that can cover both installed and candidate versions. It does not state whether it fails for unknown packages, whether it requires the package to be installed, or whether network access is needed.

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?

A single compact line with the important content front-loaded; every element in the field list earns its place. It reads as a noun fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens directive clarity but costs no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the field enumeration maps well onto it. What is missing is anything about the sole input parameter and about when this tool is the right choice among the many package_* siblings, which is a real gap for a tool in a dense family.

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 single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must define it and does not. It never says whether 'name' is an exact package name, whether wildcards or versions are accepted, or how the value is matched against apt's package index.

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 names the resource (a package) and enumerates what the returned detail set contains: version, dependencies, description, install status, candidate version. That is far more specific than the bare name 'package_info' and implicitly separates it from listing/searching siblings like package_list_installed or package_search. It stops short of a full verb+resource sentence and never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus package_list_installed, package_search, package_owner or package_files, and no prerequisites such as whether the package must be installed or whether the local apt cache must be populated. An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the field list.

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