sysknife_search_flatpak_apps

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the 'no username needed' auth note, but says nothing about whether searches hit remote registries, result limits, or failure behavior.

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?

One dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the parameter note trailing. It is efficient, though the dash-separated fragment reads slightly run-on for a tool description.

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 search this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a result contains or whether remote name filtering is possible. Those gaps are minor but real.

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 no properties, so the description's 'param: term* (query string)' is the only documentation of the input and helpfully marks it required. That is real added meaning, though no format examples or matching semantics are given.

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 and resource ('search Flatpak remotes for apps'), which clearly separates it from list_installed_flatpaks and get_flatpak_app_info. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of 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?

'Search Flatpak remotes for apps' implies the lookup use case and 'no username needed' removes an auth question. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as list_flatpak_remotes or get_flatpak_app_info.

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