spm_show_dependencies

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 what the tool outputs, but does not reveal whether it is read-only, requires network access, modifies state, or has side effects. For a tool that reads project configuration, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. A more informative description of similar length could include usage hints or output shape.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description minimally covers what it does. However, it does not explain the structure of the dependency tree output, whether it shows transitive dependencies, or what happens if projectPath is omitted (e.g., current directory). This leaves an agent with unanswered questions.

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% (the single parameter 'projectPath' has a description in the schema: 'Project directory containing Package.swift'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'Swift Package Manager dependency tree', and specifies the output format 'as JSON'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spm_resolve (which resolves dependencies) and spm_update (which updates packages), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be resolved first), nor does it suggest cases where another tool like spm_resolve would be more appropriate. The agent must infer 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.