build_spm_package

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the build mechanism ('swift build') but omits side effects like generating .build artifacts, whether it cleans before building, required permissions, or output format. This is a significant gap for a build operation.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose and method without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with four optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about build outputs, prerequisites, or how it relates to similar sibling tools like `build_swift_package`, making it only minimally complete for an agent to use confidently.

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%, with all four parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 builds a Swift Package Manager package using `swift build` rather than Xcode, providing a specific verb, resource, and method. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool `build_swift_package`, which may serve a similar or identical role, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'instead of Xcode' implies when to use this tool versus an Xcode-based build, offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, such as when to prefer `build_swift_package` or `build_project`.

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