arch_package_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query (implying read-only) but does not mention network usage for remote repositories, whether installed_only defaults to true, or any permissions required. The description is too sparse to convey potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. Considering the simplicity of the tool, it is still under-specified for an agent to use correctly without additional inference.

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 only hints at the installed_only parameter through 'search installed packages or remote repositories.' It does not explain the 'query' parameter format or the default value of installed_only. The description adds some meaning but does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and clearly identifies the resource ('Arch Linux / CachyOS pacman package database') with explicit scope ('search installed packages or remote repositories'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arch_aur_search and arch_check_updates.

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 implies usage for pacman database queries but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., for AUR, use arch_aur_search) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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