swift_evolution_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes what information is returned (proposal status, compiler flags, migration guidance) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is adequate but not thorough for a check tool.

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 concise with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by bullet points. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly tighter by removing the 'Use this to verify:' preamble.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information to understand tool behavior and results. It covers what the tool checks and what it returns (proposal number, status, etc.), but lacks error handling details.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by providing concrete examples of features ('nonisolated(unsafe)', 'typed throws') and listing uses like 'Required compiler flags or availability annotations', which help clarify parameter usage.

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 verb 'Checks' and resource 'status of Swift language features against Swift Evolution proposals'. It lists specific verifications (availability, proposal status, compiler flags, migration guidance) and distinguishes from siblings (fetch_latest_apple_docs, xcode_diagnostic_analyzer) by focusing on Swift Evolution proposals.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to verify:' followed by four bullet points describing when to use the tool. It provides clear context but does not include when not to use or direct comparisons to sibling tools, though the purpose differentiation is implied.

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