get_installed_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares 'Read-only' and warns that the operation is 'Fatal if the package manager is unsupported or the query fails,' which are important operational caveats. It does not mention any permission requirements, but the read-only nature and failure modes are well covered.

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 entire description is two sentences, front-loading the primary action and supported systems, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, which system families it supports, its read-only nature, failure behavior, and a pointer to the alternative for upgrades. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage ('optional package name filter'), and the description echoes 'Optional name filter.' No additional semantic detail such as regex or exact-match behavior is provided, so the description adds only minimal value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Queries installed packages' and names the exact package manager commands for Arch and Debian, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tool check_updates by specifying this is for checking what is installed, not for upgrades.

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?

It provides direct usage guidance: 'Use to check what is installed; check_updates for available upgrades.' It also states both supported package managers (pacman, dpkg) and unsupported ones (rpm/dnf), giving the agent a clear precondition.

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