sysknife_apt_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'read-only' stated twice in the description is pure repetition. The only added value is knowing the response content (version, deps, description); nothing about failure modes or missing-package behavior is disclosed.

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?

Short and front-loaded — the action and its output content come first. Minor waste: 'read-only' appears twice (opening clause and trailing clause) and the internal code name is redundant with the tool name.

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 read-only query with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is almost adequate. The unresolved contradiction between 'package*' being required and a zero-parameter schema is a real gap an agent would hit on first 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?

The schema declares an empty object with additionalProperties=true (zero named parameters), yet the description asserts 'param: package*' as required. That mismatch is actively confusing: an agent cannot tell whether to pass a package name as a named field, a positional value, or nothing at all. The description does not add usable semantics here; it introduces ambiguity.

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+resource: 'show package details (version, deps, description)'. That clearly distinguishes it from sysknife_apt_list_installed and sysknife_apt_list_upgradable, though it never explicitly contrasts with sysknife_apt_search.

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 implied by the content listed (version, deps, description), but the description never says when to prefer this over apt_search or apt_history_list. No exclusions or alternatives are named despite many closely related siblings.

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