query_file_ownership

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already known. The description adds value by specifying the SUSE Linux requirement and showing example outputs, but it does not disclose error handling, return format details, or behavior for empty/missing results. The description does not contradict 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 well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then elaborating three modes with examples. It is a bit long but every sentence contributes practical information. The examples are valuable, though they could be condensed slightly.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 3 modes, optional filter) and lack of an output schema, the description does a solid job covering usage scenarios with examples and platform constraints. It doesn't address edge cases like invalid queries or exact regex syntax, and the filter_pattern example may mislead, but the core functionality is well explained.

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 provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by giving concrete examples of parameter combinations (e.g., mode='file_to_package', query='/usr/bin/python') and illustrating expected outputs, which clarifies how the mode and query interact. The filter_pattern example uses a glob-like pattern while the schema says regex, which is a minor inconsistency, but overall the description provides added clarity.

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 tool's purpose as 'querying file-package ownership relationships' and explicitly lists three distinct modes with concrete examples, making it distinct from sibling tools like query_package_history or get_official_package_info. The platform constraint 'Only works on SUSE Linux' further sharpens its scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use each of the three modes, with examples and expected results, and notes the SUSE Linux limitation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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