arch-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It specifies the tool performs analysis (scanning PKGBUILD for 50+ red flags, evaluating trustworthiness metrics) and provides concrete examples of what each action does. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, it clearly describes the security-focused nature of the operations.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, specific actions explained, concrete examples, and a critical usage warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The front-loaded security focus and practical examples make it immediately useful.

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 security audit tool with readOnlyHint annotation but no output schema, the description provides strong context about what the tool examines and why. It covers the two main audit types with specific criteria. The main gap is lack of information about return format or what constitutes 'red flags' or 'risk' results, but the purpose and usage are well explained.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds some value by explaining what each action does (pkgbuild_analysis vs metadata_risk) and providing usage examples, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a 'comprehensive security audit for AUR packages' with specific actions (pkgbuild_analysis scanning for 50+ red flags and metadata_risk evaluating trustworthiness via votes/maintainer/age). It distinguishes itself from siblings like install_package_secure or verify_package_integrity by focusing on pre-installation auditing rather than installation or verification.

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 explicitly states '⚠️ Always audit AUR packages before installing,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also includes examples for both action types, helping users understand appropriate contexts for each. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_aur or get_official_package_info by emphasizing security assessment.

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