flutter_widget_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default filtering behavior, the case-insensitive filter semantics, the max_depth semantics (0 = no limit), and the source-location output format. It doesn't mention performance implications or whether the tree is a snapshot, but for a read-only inspection tool this is solid coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, the default filtering behavior in the second, and the output format in the third. The Args section is a tight list with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers the key behavioral parameters and the output format (source location per line). The 'as elsewhere' shorthand for package and serial relies on sibling consistency, which is a minor gap, but overall an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains contains (case-insensitive filter on widget type or description), max_depth (0 for no limit, otherwise prune deeper), limit (max widgets returned), and include_framework (also show framework/third-party widgets). The 'package, serial: as elsewhere' shorthand is terse but acceptable given sibling consistency. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('live widget tree'), and adds a distinctive detail: each line ends with the file and line that built it. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ui_dump or screenshot, which capture UI state or pixels rather than the widget tree with source locations.

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 explains the default behavior (only own-project widgets shown, framework wrappers are noise) and documents the include_framework flag to opt into framework/third-party widgets. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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