manage_orphans

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

The description explicitly says 'remove orphaned packages' and requires sudo for removal, indicating destructive operations. However, annotations set destructiveHint=false, which directly contradicts the described behavior. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 well-organized, front-loading the purpose, then providing constraints and examples. Every sentence adds value and the examples are illustrative without being verbose.

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?

Covers actions, platform, privileges, and usage examples, and explains the output for 'list' (disk usage). However, it does not describe the return value for 'remove' (other than dry-run preview), leaving some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful examples (list shows disk usage, dry_run preview, exclude list) that clarify parameter behavior and default values 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 clearly states it is a 'unified tool for managing orphaned packages' with two specific actions ('list' and 'remove'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remove_packages' by focusing on orphans. The verb and resource are explicit.

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?

Provides clear platform and privilege context ('Only works on SUSE Linux', 'Requires sudo access for removal') and concrete examples for each action. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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