arch-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies platform restriction (Arch Linux), sudo requirement for removal, and provides concrete examples of different usage patterns. While annotations indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, the description clarifies that removal requires sudo and shows how dry_run works, adding meaningful operational context.

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, action explanation, constraints, and concrete examples in just four sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity (3 parameters, two distinct actions), the description provides comprehensive context including platform restrictions, permission requirements, and usage examples. The main gap is lack of information about return values/output format, but otherwise it's quite complete given the annotations and schema coverage.

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 input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description provides examples showing parameter usage patterns (like exclude parameter with remove action), but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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's purpose as a unified tool for managing orphaned packages with two specific actions (list and remove). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remove_packages' by focusing specifically on orphaned dependencies no longer required, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance including when to use each action, prerequisites (Arch Linux, sudo access for removal), and examples showing different scenarios. It clearly distinguishes between list and remove actions and specifies platform constraints.

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