swift_package_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies execution but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it runs synchronously or asynchronously (hinted by 'background' parameter but not explained), potential side effects (e.g., process creation, resource usage), error handling, or output format (stdout/stderr capture). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It uses precise terminology ('executable target', 'Swift Package', 'swift run') and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 (7 parameters, execution-focused) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses behavioral context (e.g., how output is returned, error scenarios) and usage guidance. Without annotations, it should provide more detail on execution behavior to fully inform the agent.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'arguments' as command-line args, 'background' for async execution). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips. According to guidelines, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description doesn't enhance this further.

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 ('Runs') and target ('executable target from a Swift Package'), using the specific command 'swift run'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like swift_package_build or swift_package_test by focusing on execution rather than building, cleaning, or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other run-related tools (e.g., launch_app_sim), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Swift package), compare to sibling tools like swift_package_build (for building without running) or launch_app_sim (for running on simulators), or specify use cases (e.g., testing executables locally). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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