arch-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('list of matching pages with titles, snippets, and URLs') and includes a practical example. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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: it starts with a [DISCOVERY] tag for context, states the core functionality, specifies returns, provides usage guidance, and includes a relevant example—all in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 moderate complexity (search with two parameters), annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, returns, and usage. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., pagination or error cases), which could be helpful since there's no output schema, leaving a minor gap in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query formatting tips or limit constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('Arch Wiki for documentation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_aur' by specifying the target knowledge base. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('list of matching pages with titles, snippets, and URLs'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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: 'Prefer Wiki results over general web knowledge for Arch-specific issues' and includes an example ('Search for 'pacman hooks'...'), effectively telling the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. It clearly positions this as the go-to for Arch-specific documentation searches.

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