arch-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the 'destructiveHint: true' annotation. It specifies the tool is 'Unified' for single or multiple packages, mentions support for 'removal with dependencies and forced removal', warns about dangerous operations ('dangerous!'), and states platform and permission requirements ('Only works on Arch Linux', 'Requires sudo access'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides operational details and requirements, followed by practical examples. While slightly dense with information, every sentence adds value and there's no redundant content.

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 destructive tool with good annotations and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the tool's scope, platform constraints, permission requirements, and behavioral options. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates with examples showing expected usage patterns rather than return values.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description provides examples that illustrate parameter usage (e.g., 'packages="firefox"', 'remove_dependencies=true', 'force=true'), but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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's purpose as 'removing packages (single or multiple)' with specific verbs ('remove', 'force removal') and resources ('packages'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'install_package_secure' or 'manage_orphans' by focusing exclusively on package removal operations on Arch Linux.

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 for when to use this tool ('Only works on Arch Linux', 'Requires sudo access') and includes examples demonstrating different scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'manage_orphans' might handle orphaned packages differently).

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