arch-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the tool's scope (integrates multiple diagnostics, provides complete overview) and platform constraint (Arch Linux only), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like execution time, output format, or potential side effects. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and key details. The second sentence could be slightly tightened, but overall it's efficient with no wasted words, and every sentence adds value (platform constraint, diagnostic components).

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 complexity (comprehensive health check) and lack of output schema, the description does an adequate job by listing the specific checks performed. However, it doesn't explain the return format or how results are structured, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret outputs. The annotations cover safety, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool does, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 with specific verbs ('run', 'integrates', 'provide') and resources ('system health check', 'multiple diagnostics', 'complete overview of system status'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing comprehensiveness across multiple system aspects, unlike more focused tools like check_database_freshness or analyze_storage.

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') and implies usage through the comprehensive nature of the check. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the broad scope suggests it's for general health overviews rather than targeted diagnostics.

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