Package search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the list of package managers and the 'search' behavior, which is consistent with the annotations. It does not add significant behavioral context beyond that, such as whether it queries installed packages or remote repositories.

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 a single focused sentence that states the core purpose and gives helpful examples of package managers. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 simple search tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the search covers installed packages, available packages, or both, and whether the supported package manager is auto-detected. This would be valuable context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'query' or 'count' at all. While the schema provides names, types, and a default, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what is already inferable from the tool name and parameter titles.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search native package manager', with concrete examples of supported managers (apt/dnf/pacman/brew). This clearly distinguishes it from general web or wiki search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like package_info, which may also involve querying package data.

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 implies when to use the tool: when searching for packages via the native package manager. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as package_info, package_install, or web_search. The usage context is understandable but not fully articulated.

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