Install AUR packages (gated and verified)

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the gating requirement and the post-install verification step, which is useful. However, for a risky operation that builds and runs user-contributed AUR build scripts, it omits any warning about untrusted PKGBUILDs, failure/rollback behavior, or what happens when verification fails — meaningful gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences with zero wasted words: purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and the gating prerequisite in sentence two. Every word earns its place; this is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 system-mutating operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core contract (what, how, verification, gate) but leaves important gaps: what 'verified' means in the result, failure behavior, whether installation is atomic, and how this interacts with pkg_add/update_system. Adequate but not complete for a risky install operation.

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 0% and the description gives no parameter-specific information. The single 'packages' array's semantics are only inferable from the phrase 'Install AUR packages' — an agent can guess it is the list of package names, but there is no explanation of the name format, the min/max bounds, or the unusual '@' character permitted by the pattern. With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not.

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), resource (AUR packages), and channel (through Omarchy), plus a verification step ('then verify that all are present'). The 'AUR' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from the sibling pkg_add, which presumably handles non-AUR packages, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 a clear gating prerequisite ('Requires enableDangerous') that conditions when the tool may be invoked. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling pkg_add or update_system, nor state when to prefer those alternatives for non-AUR packages or system updates. The 'AUR packages' scope implies the distinction but never confirms it.

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