test_spm_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool uses 'swift test directly.' It does not disclose side effects such as building the package, creating .build artifacts, or requiring Package.swift. This is a notable gap for a test tool that likely compiles code.

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 front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes, with no unnecessary detail.

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 is simple and the schema covers parameters, but the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should clarify return behavior, build side effects, or how it differs from test_swift_package. The one-liner is functional but not fully complete for a state-changing operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are clear (e.g., filter format, defaults for verbose/parallel, packagePath behavior). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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's function: 'Runs tests for a Swift Package Manager package directly using swift test.' This is a specific verb+resource+method. However, it does not differentiate from sibling test_swift_package, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it misses the top 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 phrase 'instead of Xcode' implies use when you want to test an SPM package without Xcode, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like test_swift_package or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied, not stated.

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