get_official_package_info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the execution method (local pacman vs. API) and return fields (version, dependencies, install size, repository location). This context helps the agent understand side effects and output, though error handling is missing.

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 single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, followed by mechanism, preference rule, and example. Every sentence adds value, though it could be structured with bullet points for even quicker scanning.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return fields and behavior (local vs. API). It addresses the parameter and usage context. Missing error cases, but the simple 1-parameter tool is adequately documented for most use cases.

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 fully describes the parameter (exact package name), but the description adds an example ('python'), illustrating usage and reinforcing the exact match requirement. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 tool retrieves information about official Arch repository packages, differentiating it from AUR tools like search_aur. The verb 'Get' and resource 'official package info' are specific, and the preference rule further disambiguates from siblings.

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 provides clear guidance: prefer official packages over AUR, and it explains the local/API fallback. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool, leaving some room for improvement.

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