arch_discover_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must alone convey behavior. It only restates the core function ('discover') without disclosing side effects, safety (read-only), permissions, or what happens during the scan. Since this is a discovery tool, it's likely safe, but that is not stated, leaving the agent uncertain about its behavior.

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 sentence that is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the verb. It lists specific categories, earning its place, though the phrase 'installed... installed on the system' is slightly redundant and could be streamlined.

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?

The tool has an output schema (present but not shown), so return values are covered. The description provides a clear list of what it discovers, which is fairly specific. However, it lacks context about when to use it (already penalized in Usage Guidelines) and does not clarify what 'discover' entails (e.g., only names or full paths). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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: discovering installed CLI utilities, terminal emulators, package managers, Wayland helpers, and desktop monitors. It uses a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('system'), but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like arch_get_system_info or arch_package_query, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. Given the large sibling set, this is a notable gap.

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