Package Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Mentioning apt-cache search is genuinely useful — it signals a read-only lookup against the package index, no root privileges, and no mutation — but the description says nothing about whether the index must be refreshed first, latency, or pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 front-loaded clause with zero padding; the parenthetical adds concrete mechanism context rather than restating the title. It is efficient, though the brevity arguably costs it coverage elsewhere rather than being a conciseness flaw.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented `limit` parameter, an agent lacks enough to know how many results it will get or how to control result volume.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only half does. "By name" clarifies that `query` matches package names (though apt-cache search actually matches descriptions too, creating ambiguity), while the `limit` parameter with its default of 50 is entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search available packages by name") and even names the underlying mechanism (apt-cache search), which tells an agent this queries the repository index rather than installed state. It does not explicitly contrast itself with package_info, package_list_installed, or search_files, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase "available packages" implies the tool is for discovering candidates in the repos, which hints at usage versus package_list_installed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to package_info for details or package_install for the follow-up action.

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