packages

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

The description implies potential destructive actions (install, remove, update) but does not disclose permissions, side effects, reversibility, or output behavior. Without annotations, the description bears full burden and fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 conveys the core functionality without excess. However, it could be more structured to highlight important details like required parameters or example usage.

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 complexity (4 parameters, multiple actions) and the presence of an output schema not shown, the description is too brief. It lacks return value details, usage notes, and fails to fully inform an agent for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not explain any parameters. It mentions 'across supported backends' but fails to detail 'action', 'package', 'method', or 'source' meanings, leaving agents without guidance.

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: installing, removing, searching, listing, or updating packages across supported backends. It uses specific verbs and resource, effectively differentiating from sibling tools that manage other aspects like distroboxes or firewalls.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage_distrobox' or 'manage_podman'. The description solely states what the tool does without context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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