check_package_installed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds supported package managers but does not disclose the result format, behavior for unknown packages, or how the manager is selected. 'Check whether' implies a boolean result but it is not explicit.

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 short sentence with a helpful parenthetical listing supported package managers. It is front-loaded with the action and target, and contains no filler or redundant content.

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, single-parameter, read-only check with strong annotations the description is mostly sufficient, and naming supported managers adds useful context. However, with no output schema it does not explicitly state the return type or behavior when the package is not installed, leaving some ambiguity. A brief note on the expected result would make it fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and only a required string 'name'. The description implies that 'name' is a package name and hints at package managers, which partially compensates for the missing schema description. It does not specify format, case sensitivity, or which package manager is used for a given system.

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 clearly states the action ('Check whether') and target resource ('a package is installed'), and lists supported package managers (apt/dnf/pacman), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_installed_applications or check_updates, though the intent is distinct.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as list_installed_applications and check_updates exist, but the description does not mention them or state when this tool is preferred. Usage is only implied by the name and verb.

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