query_package_history

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description does not contradict. It discloses the platform limitation (Arch Linux) and the read-only nature. Could mention that it reads pacman logs and no modifications occur, but overall adequate.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but well-organized, starting with purpose and then listing query types with examples. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but efficient and informative.

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 query types, parameter dependencies, default limit, platform restriction, and examples. For a read-only query tool with rich schema, no output schema is needed. Completely sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. Description adds value by providing usage examples and clarifying dependencies (e.g., package_name required for 'package' type), enhancing meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for querying package history from pacman logs, with four distinct query types. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like check_updates_dry_run or install_package_secure by focusing on historical data retrieval.

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 concrete examples for each query type, guiding the agent on when to use each. However, it lacks explicit mention of when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings, though it is implied by the focus on history.

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