sysknife_apt_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' (stated twice) adds nothing. It also does not clarify that 'apt repos' is a local cache lookup rather than a network fetch, which would have been genuinely useful given openWorldHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but it wastes space on a framework prefix ('SysKnife action `AptSearch`') that restates the tool name and on repeating 'read-only' even though it is also in the annotations. Roughly a third of the sentence does no work.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive search with no output schema, the minimum is present: action, resource, and the required term. However, an agent still cannot tell what a hit looks like (package name only, version, repo) or that the search is against local package metadata.

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 declares no properties at all, so the description is the only place that surfaces the 'term' argument and marks it required with an asterisk. That compensates for a real schema gap, though it gives no format or matching-behavior detail (substring vs regex).

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?

Clear verb + resource: 'search apt repos for packages', which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like apt_list_installed, apt_show, and apt_history_list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'search apt repos for packages' – an agent can infer this is for locating a package by term. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of apt_show or apt_list_installed as alternatives.

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