swiftlint_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the output format (JSON), which is helpful for understanding the return type. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, whether it modifies files, performance implications for large directories, or what happens if SwiftLint is not installed. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 that is concise and directly to the point. Every word adds value: 'Run SwiftLint analysis' specifies the action, 'violations' the object, and 'as JSON' the output format. No redundant or verbose phrasing. It fits well within typical usage context.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention that the tool requires an external dependency (SwiftLint) to be installed, nor does it hint at what happens if the path is invalid or if config is missing. A slightly richer description (e.g., mentioning fallback behavior) would improve completeness.

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%, so both parameters ('path' and 'config') are described in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema fields. For example, it does not clarify that 'config' overrides default config, or provide examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.

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 what the tool does: running SwiftLint analysis and reporting violations as JSON. It uses the specific verb 'Run SwiftLint analysis' and specifies the resource ('violations') and output format ('JSON'). While it's clear, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like swiftlint_fix or swift_format_run, but the context of analyzing without fixing is implied.

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 the basic purpose but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like swiftlint_fix (which suggests fixing). There are no conditions, exclusions, or hints about prerequisites (e.g., requiring SwiftLint to be installed). The implied usage is correct for linting, but lacking explicit contexts limits the score to 3.

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