test_swift_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, return values, or whether the tool builds before testing. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes test suites.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise.

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 8 optional parameters and lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain expected outcomes, interaction with other SPM commands, or potential delays/effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information, but the input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, 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 action ('Tests') and the resource ('a Swift Package'), making it easy to understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'test_spm_package', which likely performs the same function, missing the opportunity to distinguish itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_spm_package' or 'swift_package_command'. The description lacks any context for tool selection, leaving the agent without explicit direction on choosing the correct tool.

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