apt_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a little behavioral context by identifying `apt-cache show` and saying the result is a string, but it does not discuss edge cases like unknown packages or host connection failures. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured into purpose, args, and returns sections. It front-loads the core operation and contains no redundant filler, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only package metadata query, the description plus the nested schema and safety annotations are largely sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance about choosing this tool over package-search or package-management siblings, but nothing critical is missing for calling the 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 description lists the parameter names `packages`, `host`, and `response_format` but does not add new semantics for them. The nested schema actually provides detailed descriptions for all three fields, so the schema does most of the work and the description is not misleading, just minimal.

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 action: providing detailed information about one or more packages, and it names the underlying `apt-cache show` command. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like apt_search, apt_install, or apt_remove.

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 this is the tool to use when package metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus apt_search, apt_list_upgradable, or other package-related tools. The usage context must be inferred from the command reference and tool name rather than being directly explained.

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