build_swift_package

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

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Builds a Swift Package' without disclosing side effects (e.g., creating build artifacts), required permissions, or potential failures. This is minimal behavioral disclosure, leaving the agent unaware of what happens beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently states the action and target, earning its place without redundancy.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and several similar sibling tools, the description is too brief to provide adequate context. It omits information about relationships to sibling tools, expected outputs, or usage nuances, leaving the agent underinformed in ambiguous scenarios.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptive text in the schema, covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 it builds a Swift Package using Swift Package Manager, identifying the tool's primary function with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'build_spm_package', so it lacks sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'build_project' or 'build_spm_package'. The description gives no context on suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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