arch_aur_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent this is a search operation, which implies a read-only network fetch, but it does not mention potential side effects like updating the yay cache or requiring network access. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple one-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It does not explain how the two repository sources are combined or whether the search is case-sensitive, but for a straightforward search tool this is a minor gap.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'query' parameter beyond its name and type. It does not state whether the query is a package name, a regex, or a fuzzy search term, leaving the agent without crucial semantic information for properly forming the query.

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 action ('Search'), the target resources ('Arch User Repository (AUR) & CachyOS software repositories'), and the method ('using yay'). This specific verb+resource+method distinguishes it from siblings like arch_package_query, which likely handles official repos.

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 that this tool is for searching AUR and CachyOS repos, implying it is the right choice when those sources are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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