ubuntu_search_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return contract ('JSON string in unified {ok, data|error} contract'), the meaning of the detailed flag, and the query format validation. It could additionally state that the operation is read-only or non-mutating, but the word 'Search' and the package-index target make that reasonably clear.

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: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by Args and Returns. Every line adds useful information, and the most important details are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, validation, and return format. An output schema exists to handle detailed return structures. The only notable gap is the null behavior of detailed, but overall the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It defines the regex requirement for query and explains the True/False behavior of detailed. However, it does not explicitly describe the behavior when detailed is null, even though the schema defaults it to null, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') along with a specific resource ('APT package index') and a 'validated query token' rule. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ubuntu_install_package or ubuntu_execute_command, since the focus is on querying the package index rather than acting on the system.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'Search APT package index' and the sibling tool names, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ubuntu_install_package or ubuntu_get_system_info. It earns an implied-usage score rather than no guidance, because the intended scenario is reasonably clear.

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