Install Arch packages (gated and verified)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that installation is followed by verification and that enableDangerous is required, but does not describe failure handling, side effects, or permission details beyond the flag. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and a key prerequisite are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description leaves out important context like verification failure behavior, package source scope, and interaction with the system. Given the presence of related siblings, more detail would help an agent decide and call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'packages' means (e.g., names, formats, sources), leaving the single parameter semantically underdefined beyond the schema pattern and length constraints.

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?

States a specific verb (Install) and resource (packages through Omarchy), plus a verification step. It clearly indicates installing packages, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling pkg_add_aur, leaving some ambiguity about 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?

Mentions the prerequisite 'Requires enableDangerous' but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like pkg_add_aur or update_system. No explicit criteria or exclusions are provided.

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