arch-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about platform compatibility constraints (Arch-only for cache_stats) and clarifies this is a monitoring tool, which provides additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't describe output format, error conditions, or performance characteristics.

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 extremely efficient - three sentences that each earn their place. The first establishes the tool category, the second enumerates actions with brief explanations, and the third provides critical platform constraints. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with good schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the two analysis modes and their platform constraints. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't indicate what information will be returned, but given the simplicity of the tool and clear action definitions, this is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single 'action' parameter fully documented in the schema with enum values and description. The description adds some semantic context by explaining what each action does ('check disk space for critical paths', 'analyze pacman package cache'), but this mostly reinforces rather than extends the schema information.

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 performs 'unified storage analysis' with two specific actions: 'disk_usage (check disk space for critical paths)' and 'cache_stats (analyze pacman package cache)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on storage analysis rather than package management, configuration analysis, or system diagnostics.

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 context about when to use each action: 'Works on any system for disk_usage, Arch only for cache_stats.' This gives important platform constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar siblings like 'get_system_info' or 'run_system_health_check' which might also provide storage-related information.

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