arch-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it warns about AUR packages being 'user-produced and potentially unsafe' and specifies what information is returned (votes, maintainer, last update). This provides important safety and output context that annotations don't cover.

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, important warning, return value information, and specific usage guidance—all in three well-organized sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 search tool with read-only annotation and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description provides excellent contextual completeness: it covers purpose, safety warnings, return values, and clear usage guidelines relative to sibling tools. The lack of output schema is compensated by describing what information is returned.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 searches the Arch User Repository (AUR) for packages with smart ranking, specifying the resource (AUR packages) and action (search with ranking). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_official_package_info' by focusing on user-produced packages versus official repositories.

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 guidance: 'Always check official repos first using get_official_package_info' and gives a specific use case example ('Before installing spotify...'). It clearly indicates when to use this tool (for AUR packages) versus alternatives (official packages).

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