get_package_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'gets detailed information', which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, return format, or potential errors. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word contributes meaning.

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 description is vague about what 'detailed information' includes and what the return format is. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context such as the nature of the information, potential side effects, or when to prefer this tool over similar ones. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an 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?

The schema already covers the sole parameter "packagePath" with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics or context about the parameter, so it doesn't improve on the schema but also doesn't need to. Baseline 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 action ('gets') and the resource ('detailed information about a Swift Package Manager package'), making the purpose easy to understand. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like dump_swift_package or show_swift_dependencies, which could also provide package-related information.

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 lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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