spm_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description only says 'Resolve SPM dependencies', implying a write/mutation operation but does not explain side effects (e.g., downloads, lockfile updates), required permissions, or whether it's safe to run repeatedly. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies project state.

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 that clearly states the core function. It front-loads the action and avoids unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by adding brief context about use cases.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, side effects, or prerequisites. It is minimally viable but not complete. For instance, it doesn't indicate whether the tool outputs logs or errors, or how long resolution might take.

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 each parameter having a clear description. The description adds no extra parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is well-documented. Parameters are optional, and the description doesn't clarify interactions (e.g., if both scheme and projectPath are needed). However, with full schema coverage, a score of 4 is justified.

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 states the verb 'Resolve' and resource 'Swift Package Manager dependencies for a project', which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like spm_update or spm_show_dependencies, which are closely related package management operations. The purpose is adequate but 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spm_update vs. resolving), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring SPM dependency files. It is a single statement without usage context or exclusions.

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