Search Packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that matching is against name or description, but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or whether it queries a local cache versus remote indices.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first and every word earns its place.

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 trivial one-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks only a note on scope (local apt cache vs repositories) and result behavior, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 schema documents the single query parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name or description' clarifies what the query matches against, adding mild value beyond the schema's bare 'Search term'.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (apt packages) plus the matching fields (name or description), which separates it from apt_list_installed and apt_show. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: search when you don't know the exact package name, versus apt_show for a known package or apt_list_installed for what's already on the system. However, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated, so the agent must infer it.

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