query_package_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it reads pacman logs and only works on Arch Linux. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not detail resource usage or output format.

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, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then lists query types with examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Covers all four query types with examples, platform constraint, and required parameter. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to specify return format. It is adequately complete for a read-only query tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning with examples (e.g., 'when docker was installed' for package_name) and clarifies the conditional requirement for package_name. This goes beyond the schema's enum labels.

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 it queries package history from pacman logs, lists all four query types with examples, and is distinct from sibling tools that cover other aspects (e.g., install, update, analyze).

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?

Provides explicit examples for each query type, implying when to use them (e.g., 'when docker was installed' for package query). States the platform restriction (Arch Linux). Does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the examples serve as guidance.

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