swift_package_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool builds but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., generates artifacts), error handling, or output format. For a build tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey the essential action. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (build operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the build produces, success/failure indicators, or behavioral context needed for effective use. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing operational guidance.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, no clarification on default behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra value is added.

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 action ('Builds') and resource ('a Swift Package'), specifying the implementation method ('with swift build'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like swift_package_clean, swift_package_run, and swift_package_test by focusing on building rather than cleaning, running, or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other build tools in the sibling list (e.g., build_dev_proj, build_mac_proj).

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. With many sibling build tools (e.g., build_dev_proj, build_mac_proj, build_sim_id_proj), there's no indication of when swift_package_build is appropriate versus project/workspace-specific builds, or how it relates to swift_package_run for execution. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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