manage_orphans

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

The description contradicts annotations: annotations mark destructiveHint=False, but the tool can remove packages (destructive operation). The description does not resolve this inconsistency, and annotations lack accurate behavioral hints.

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 well-structured: it starts with a clear label, summarizes functionality, lists constraints, and provides three illustrative examples. No redundant sentences.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: actions, constraints, and usage patterns. The only minor gap is lack of output description for the remove action, but examples imply it.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by providing concrete examples and clarifying defaults (e.g., dry_run defaults to true) and the scope of each parameter (e.g., exclude only for remove action).

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 identifies the tool as managing orphaned packages, with two distinct actions: list and remove. It is distinct from siblings like remove_packages which handles general package removal.

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 states platform dependency (Arch Linux) and requirement for sudo access during removal. Examples illustrate common use cases. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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