Flutter Inspector MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among inspector_get_* tools (e.g., inspector_get_children_details_subtree vs. inspector_get_details_subtree) and debug_dump_* tools, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions help clarify differences, and the majority of tools target specific Flutter debugging or inspection tasks.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear prefixes (dart_io_, debug_, flutter_core_, inspector_, get_, stream_) that group related functionality. This predictable structure makes it easy to understand the tool's domain and purpose at a glance.
Tool Count2/5With 42 tools, the count is excessive for a Flutter inspector server, making it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. A more focused set of 10-20 tools would better serve the debugging and inspection domain without sacrificing functionality.
Completeness5/5The tool set comprehensively covers Flutter inspection and debugging, including widget tree analysis, performance profiling, debugging toggles, HTTP/socket profiling, and utility functions. There are no obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose, providing full lifecycle and diagnostic capabilities.
Average 3.1/5 across 42 of 42 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 114 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states only that the tool sets properties, but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., destructive effects, required permissions, error conditions, or side effects). This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks essential context. It is concise but not informative; conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling tools for individual properties, the description should clarify the advantage of using this combined tool. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns. It is incomplete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., how to obtain the objectId or the effect of fit/factor). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name ('Set multiple flex properties of a flex child widget'), providing no additional insight. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like layout_set_flex_factor and layout_set_flex_fit, which are more specific. This fails the 'specific verb+resource' standard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the individual property setters. The description offers no context about use cases, when to prefer batch updates, or when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits (e.g., does it replace existing roots? permissions? side effects?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, overly brief sentence that lacks necessary detail. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling tools with similar names, the description fails to explain the unique behavior of 'add' vs 'set' or 'remove'. No output schema or return value information is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description is essentially a paraphrase of the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it adds root directories for pub packages, which is clear but redundant with the tool name. It does not differentiate from siblings like inspector_set_pub_root_directories or inspector_remove_pub_root_directories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, effects, or order of operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it's an RPC call but does not specify if it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or details error handling. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, consisting of a single sentence that states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the version information includes, the format of the response, or potential errors, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the port parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior details or usage context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves Flutter version information, which is a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vm_info' or 'get_active_ports' that might also provide system information, leaving ambiguity about its specific role in the toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about scenarios where Flutter version information is needed, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools that might offer similar or overlapping data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'dump' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it affects app performance, what the output looks like, or any side effects. For a debugging tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the RPC call from the human-readable explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'dump' entails (e.g., returns a string, logs to console), the impact on the Flutter app, or error handling. For a debugging tool with potential side effects, more context is needed to understand its full behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'port' with its type and default. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool dumps the semantics tree in inverse hit test order, which is a specific action. However, it's vague about what 'dump' means (e.g., output format, destination) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'debug_dump_semantics_tree' (which likely dumps in regular order). It's not tautological but lacks full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'debug_dump_semantics_tree' or explain why inverse order might be preferred. The description is purely functional with no context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'RPC' and 'Get details', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'details' include. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or how it interacts with the Flutter app context. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('fileId' and 'port'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'fileId' or typical 'port' values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get details of a specific open file by its ID', which provides a clear verb ('Get details') and resource ('open file'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'dart_io_get_open_files' (which likely lists multiple files) or explain what 'details' entail, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is for retrieving metadata, content, or status of a file, or when to choose it over 'dart_io_get_open_files'. The description lacks context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a one-time check, a polling mechanism, or what happens if the first frame hasn't been rasterized yet. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying it's an RPC call and what it checks. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (checking a specific Flutter debugging event), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'rasterized' means in this context, what the return value indicates (boolean? status object?), or how this integrates with Flutter's debugging workflow. For a specialized debugging tool, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'port' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Check if the first frame has been rasterized', which is a clear verb+action. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'flutter_core_did_send_first_frame_event', which appears to check a similar event but without the 'rasterized' qualifier. The description is specific about what it checks but doesn't clarify the distinction between these two frame-related events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention when this check is appropriate during Flutter app debugging, what triggers the first frame rasterization event, or how it differs from the sibling 'flutter_core_did_send_first_frame_event'. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., the widget must be a flex child), mutation implications, or whether the operation is synchronous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking structure. It could benefit from breaking out key details like required parameters or preconditions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the flex factor of a flex child widget. However, it does not distinguish this tool from related sibling tools like layout_set_flex_fit or layout_set_flex_properties, which could have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include other flex-related operations, the description should indicate specific scenarios for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if the requestId is invalid), or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more context, but it's appropriately sized and wastes no space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., request headers, timing), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (like enabling profiling first). For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (port and requestId). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the profile context or format of returned details), resulting in the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific HTTP request from the profile'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like other debug or inspector tools), which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active profile or running Flutter app) or compare it to sibling tools like 'dart_io_get_open_files' or inspector tools, leaving the agent with little context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states this is an RPC call to get a list, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, potential side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with a running Flutter app.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains, how it's structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that presumably returns dynamic data from a running application, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'port' parameter. Since the schema fully documents the single optional parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description adds no extra parameter information but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get list') and resource ('currently open files in the Flutter app'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dart_io_get_open_file_by_id' which retrieves a single file, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving open files, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'dart_io_get_open_file_by_id' or other debugging tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool toggles a debug banner, implying a mutation, but does not disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('enabled' and 'port'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Toggle the debug banner in the Flutter app', which includes a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('debug banner'). It distinguishes itself from most sibling tools, which focus on debugging other aspects (e.g., layers, trees, or platform overrides), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'debug_paint_baselines_enabled'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as needing a running Flutter app, or suggest other tools for related tasks, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Toggle disabling' which implies a mutation (changing app state), but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., visual changes, performance impact), reversibility, permissions needed, or side effects. The RPC mention hints at network communication but lacks details like error handling or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('RPC: Toggle disabling of clip layers in the Flutter app'). Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutating app state via RPC), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'clip layers' are, the impact of toggling them, error conditions, or return values. For a debugging tool that alters runtime behavior, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'enabled' and 'port' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the toggle action relates to 'clip layers'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Toggle disabling') and target resource ('clip layers in the Flutter app'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'debug_disable_opacity_layers' or 'debug_disable_physical_shape_layers', which appear to be similar debugging tools for different layer types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it's an 'RPC' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a running Flutter app), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Toggle' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or what happens when toggling (e.g., immediate effect, app restart needed). It also doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes the exact RPC identifier. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what 'debugging' entails, what physical shape layers are, what the toggle affects, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies app state, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('enabled' and 'port'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Toggle physical shape layers debugging' with the specific resource 'ext.flutter.debugDisablePhysicalShapeLayers'. It uses a precise verb ('Toggle') and identifies the exact debugging feature, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'debug_disable_clip_layers' or 'debug_disable_opacity_layers' beyond the different feature name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the tool's function without mentioning context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling debugging tools. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states the tool is an RPC that overrides brightness, implying a mutation, but fails to disclose critical details like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or how it interacts with the Flutter app's state. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured by including key usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, or integration with sibling tools, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters ('brightness' with enum values and 'port' with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of setting brightness to null or port usage. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Override') and resource ('brightness for the Flutter app'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flutter_core_platform_override' or 'debug_allow_banner', which might involve similar override mechanisms, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as other Flutter debugging or configuration tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states the tool checks an event status but doesn't explain what 'first frame event' means in Flutter context, whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or how results are returned (e.g., boolean, status message). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, clear sentence: 'RPC: Check if the first frame event has been sent'. It front-loads the purpose efficiently without any wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a debugging/monitoring RPC call), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check entails, what the return value indicates, or how it fits into Flutter app debugging. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'port' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or usage examples. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Check if the first frame event has been sent', which is a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('first frame event'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'flutter_core_did_send_first_frame_rasterized_event' by focusing on the initial frame event rather than rasterization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other debugging or monitoring tools in the sibling list, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running Flutter app), exclusions, or related tools like 'flutter_core_did_send_first_frame_rasterized_event' for similar checks. This lack of context makes it unclear when this specific check is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('evict') but doesn't explain what 'evict' entails (e.g., permanent removal, temporary clearing), potential side effects (e.g., performance impact, app state changes), or requirements (e.g., permissions, app status). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('RPC: Evict an asset from the Flutter app's cache'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., what 'evict' means, success/failure responses), usage context, and potential impacts. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('asset' and 'port') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool operates on a Flutter app cache, which is consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('evict') and resource ('asset from the Flutter app's cache'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which include various debugging and inspection tools but no other cache management functions, so the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 mentions it's an RPC for evicting a cache asset, but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., to free memory, resolve stale data) or prerequisites (e.g., app must be running). With many sibling tools for debugging and inspection, no context is given for choosing this over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'RPC' and 'Override,' implying a remote procedure call that changes platform settings, but fails to detail effects like whether this is temporary, requires app restart, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs an override operation. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what happens post-override, which is critical for an agent to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (platform and port). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or typical use cases. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Override') and target ('platform for the Flutter app'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flutter_core_brightness_override' or 'flutter_core_time_dilation', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to override the platform versus other Flutter core settings. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is an RPC call but does not describe what 'children details subtree' entails, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or output format. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps for an agent to understand its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It includes the RPC name for technical context without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more structured by separating functional and technical details, but it remains concise with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex subtree data. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with potential complexity in Flutter debugging, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'objectId' as the widget ID and 'port' with a default. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'widget' is or how the subtree is structured. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the children details subtree') and the target ('for a widget'), with the RPC name providing technical specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspector_get_children_summary_tree' by specifying 'details' rather than 'summary', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose it over similar tools like 'inspector_get_children_summary_tree' or 'inspector_get_details_subtree', nor does it specify prerequisites or context for use. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions it's an RPC call but doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a tree structure), potential errors, or performance implications. This leaves the agent guessing about the output format and behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (RPC call for debugging Flutter apps), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or how it fits into the debugging workflow, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'port' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('root widget summary tree'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'inspector_get_root_widget_summary_tree_with_previews' by specifying it's the basic version without previews. However, it could be more specific about what a 'summary tree' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'inspector_get_root_widget_summary_tree_with_previews' or other inspector tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a running Flutter app, or typical use cases for debugging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific app states, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or return format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a running Flutter app.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and what it provides. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the default port or sibling differentiation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (interacting with a Flutter app), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral implications, and output format, which are important for effective tool selection by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'port' documented as 'Port number where the Flutter app is running (defaults to 8181)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('root widget summary tree with previews from the Flutter app'), and specifies it provides a hierarchical view with preview information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspector_get_root_widget_summary_tree' (without previews), which is a notable gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as the similar 'inspector_get_root_widget_summary_tree' tool (which lacks previews) or other inspector tools for different views. It mentions the Flutter app context but offers no explicit usage rules or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (set) without mentioning whether it overwrites existing directories, requires permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It includes the RPC identifier which is not essential for understanding, but overall there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (setting root directories that affect pub resolution) and the absence of output schema, the description lacks important context such as that this replaces the current list, that it requires a running Flutter app, or what the expected outcome is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already documents them adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the root directories for pub packages', which indicates the verb 'set' and the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like inspector_add_pub_root_directories and inspector_remove_pub_root_directories, which could cause confusion about whether 'set' replaces or updates the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the add or remove variants, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the RPC nature and default port, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only or mutation operation (though 'Set' implies mutation), what happens after selection is set, potential side effects on the Flutter app, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently cover the RPC call and port information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, side effects, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of interacting with a Flutter debug session and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (selectionId and port). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the default port context, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the selected widget') and resource ('by ID'), specifying it's an RPC call to Flutter inspector. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on selection setting rather than getting information or other debug functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all inspector_* siblings that might also manipulate selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and that it can be overridden. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspector_get_selected_widget or other inspector_* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an active Flutter debug session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or return behavior. It only states the purpose without additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It could be improved by front-loading key details but is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has nested object parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what 'show' entails (e.g., returns data vs. visual highlight). It is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shows specific widget details in the Flutter app inspector, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like inspector_get_selected_widget or inspector_get_details_subtree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'enable or disable' without explaining effects (e.g., whether profiling data is collected, if it impacts performance, or if settings persist). Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient and to the point. It includes the RPC identifier for clarity. Could be considered slightly terse but earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (boolean toggle with optional port), the description is minimally adequate. However, absence of output schema and behavioral details leaves gaps for an agent needing to understand return values or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify default behavior for 'port' or nuance around 'enabled'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool enables/disables profiling of render object layout operations, including the RPC method name. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like performance_profile_render_object_paints, but does not elaborate on what 'profiling' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description relies on the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list, missing context like prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond being an RPC call. It lacks information on side effects, performance impact, or prerequisites. Since no annotations are present, the description should provide these details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and directly states the purpose. No extra words, but could benefit from slightly more detail on usage without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values or effects on the UI, but for a simple toggle, it covers the basics. However, more context on when to use would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool toggles repaint rainbow debugging, which is a specific debugging feature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debug_paint_baselines_enabled by focusing on repaint visualization, but could be more explicit about what repaint rainbow is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to enable or disable this feature, or how it compares to other debugging toggles in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., impact on error handling), safety, or permission requirements. The minimal text fails to inform the agent about important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks necessary detail for full understanding. While there is no waste, the brevity sacrifices completeness. A score of 3 reflects that it is adequately sized for a simple tool but could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic function. However, it omits context about when to use the tool, what the default state is, or how to revert the setting. This leaves gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes both parameters ('port' and 'enabled') with clear descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'structured error reporting in the Flutter app', with no ambiguity. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools which cover other debugging and inspection features.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to enable or disable structured error reporting, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. An agent must infer use cases 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions connecting to a debug port, which implies this is for debugging purposes and may require a running Flutter app, but it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, potential side effects (e.g., affecting app performance), or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action and a key detail (default port). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and there is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool that modifies logging behavior in a debugging context, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what HTTP timeline logging entails, how it affects the app, expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('enabled' and 'port') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of enabling/disabling logging or port usage details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and resource ('HTTP timeline logging'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dart_io_socket_profiling_enabled' which handles socket profiling instead of HTTP logging, though the distinction is somewhat implied by the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and the option to specify a custom port, which implies usage in debugging scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for HTTP vs. socket profiling) or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states the tool performs a 'dump' operation, implying a read-only diagnostic action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific app states, if it's safe to call repeatedly, what format the output takes, or potential side effects. For a debugging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and RPC endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a debugging RPC with one optional parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose and RPC target, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral expectations, or output format. For a debugging tool in a set of similar siblings, it should provide more guidance to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Dump the focus tree') and identifies it as an RPC call to a specific Flutter debugging function ('ext.flutter.debugDumpFocusTree'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'debug_dump_layer_tree' or 'debug_dump_render_tree' by specifying the focus tree, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a running Flutter app), typical debugging scenarios, or how it differs from other debug dump tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions the connection to a Flutter debug port, which is useful context, but doesn't describe what 'baseline paint debugging' actually does, whether this requires specific permissions, what the expected response looks like, or any side effects. For a tool that toggles debugging settings with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides connection context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. There's minimal waste, though it could potentially be structured more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a debugging toggle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'baseline paint debugging' actually does, what visual changes occur when enabled, whether this affects performance, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies debugging state, more context about the behavior and effects is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (enabled and port). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the default port 8181, but this is already covered in the port parameter's schema description. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Toggle baseline paint debugging' with the specific Flutter property 'ext.flutter.debugPaintBaselinesEnabled'. It uses a specific verb ('Toggle') and identifies the resource (baseline paint debugging). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond mentioning the specific Flutter property.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning it 'Connects to the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise', which implies when to use the optional port parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Toggle' and 'for debugging', which implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('RPC: Toggle inverting of oversized images for debugging') that is front-loaded with the core action and context. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and debugging context but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage alternatives, and output expectations. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at return values or effects, which it doesn't, making it minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('enabled' and 'port'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'inverting' process or default port usage. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Toggle inverting of oversized images for debugging' with a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('inverting of oversized images'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'debug_paint_baselines_enabled' or 'flutter_core_brightness_override', which also appear to be debugging toggles, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'for debugging', which implies usage in debugging scenarios, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other debugging tools in the sibling list) or any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are named, leaving gaps in usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states the tool's purpose but doesn't explain what 'profiling of platform channels' entails, whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are persistent, what side effects might occur, or what the expected response looks like. For a tool that likely modifies runtime behavior, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle tool and is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (controlling runtime profiling), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain the implications of enabling/disabling profiling, what data might be collected, or how to interpret results. For a tool that likely affects debugging/monitoring, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('enabled' and 'port'). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable profiling') and the resource ('platform channels'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dart_io_socket_profiling_enabled' or 'dart_io_http_enable_timeline_logging' that also appear to control profiling aspects, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. While it's clear what the tool does, there's no information about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on 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.
- Behavior2/5
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 that this is a VM service method and specifies the default port (8181), but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects such as what information is returned, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about the port. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes, earning a 4 instead of a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving VM information, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what VM information is returned, the response format, or potential errors. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'port' parameter clearly documented as optional for custom ports. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the default port (8181), but doesn't provide additional semantics like format constraints or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get VM information from a Flutter app.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('VM information'), and distinguishes it as a 'VM service method, not a Flutter RPC.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_ports' or 'get_supported_protocols,' which may also retrieve information, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied usage context by mentioning it connects to the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise, which suggests when to use a custom port. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dart_io_get_version' or other sibling tools, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions connecting to a Flutter debug port, which hints at network/remote operation, but doesn't describe critical behaviors such as error handling, response format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance implications, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds connection details. There's no unnecessary fluff, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the port information more seamlessly, but overall it's effective and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'details subtree' includes, the response format, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured widget data, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations to cover behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'objectId' as the widget ID and 'port' as an optional custom port. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the default port (8181) without providing additional context like format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the details subtree for a widget. This provides detailed information about the widget and its descendants.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('details subtree for a widget'), and scope ('widget and its descendants'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspector_get_children_details_subtree' or 'inspector_get_root_widget_summary_tree', which appear related but have different scopes or detail levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and the option to specify a custom port, which implies this tool is used in debugging scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspector_get_children_details_subtree' or 'inspector_get_root_widget_summary_tree', nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions connecting to a Flutter debug port, which implies network interaction and potential debugging context, but doesn't describe what 'layout explorer information' includes, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. The second sentence adds useful context about the default port. There's no wasted language, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of debugging tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'layout explorer information' entails, how to interpret results, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing to select a widget first). This makes it inadequate for guiding an agent in a Flutter debugging context without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('objectId' as ID of the widget to inspect, 'port' as optional custom port). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by referencing the default port 8181, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples for 'objectId' or implications of port usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get layout explorer information for a widget' with the specific RPC method 'ext.flutter.inspector.getLayoutExplorerNode'. It uses a precise verb ('Get') and resource ('layout explorer information for a widget'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspector_get_children_details_subtree' or 'inspector_get_details_subtree', which also retrieve widget information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and the option to specify a custom port, which implies it's used for debugging Flutter applications. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other inspector tools (e.g., for layout vs. children details) or provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the port information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions connecting to a debug port, implying network interaction, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's read-only or mutative, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the parent chain output looks like. For a tool with network dependencies and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one states the purpose and RPC method, the other provides connection details. It's front-loaded with the core function. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for behavior).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that interacts with a debug port (implying potential network/authentication issues), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, permissions, or side effects, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a debugging context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('objectId' and 'port') clearly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the default port 8181 and that 'port' is optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the parent chain for a widget' with the specific RPC method 'ext.flutter.inspector.getParentChain'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on parent chain retrieval, unlike other inspector tools that get children, details, or screenshots. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'inspector_get_children_details_subtree'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and the option to specify a custom port. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'inspector_get_children_details_subtree' for child exploration) or any prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the function. It does not mention whether the call is blocking, what happens on error, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that includes essential information. The RPC name is somewhat redundant with the tool name but does not harm conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and minimal description. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of paths), error conditions, or usage context, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'port' parameter with default and purpose. The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the list of root directories for pub packages, with the specific RPC name included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that add/remove directories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., no indication that it's a read-only operation or that 'inspector_add_pub_root_directories' would be used for modification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions connecting to a debug port, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific app states (e.g., debug mode), potential side effects, error handling, or return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by implementation details. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with a Flutter debug port and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned (e.g., widget properties, hierarchy), error conditions, or dependencies on app state. For a tool with no structured output and behavioral uncertainty, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating the default port (8181) and the optional nature, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about the currently selected widget in the Flutter app.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('currently selected widget'), and context ('Flutter app'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspector_get_selected_summary_widget' or 'inspector_get_details_subtree', which appear to serve similar inspection purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and the optional custom port parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other inspector_* tools for widget details) or any prerequisites. The context is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states this is an 'RPC' and describes its checking function, but doesn't reveal whether this operation requires specific permissions, has side effects, involves network calls, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple checking tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single optional parameter, checking function) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage scenarios, or return values. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves important gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Check if widget creation tracking is enabled' with the specific resource 'Flutter app'. It uses a precise verb ('Check') and identifies the target system. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also inspect Flutter app properties, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 mentions the tool is an 'RPC' but doesn't explain what triggers its use or when other inspection tools might be more appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., performance impact when enabled), persistence of state, or required permissions. The agent is left uninformed about behavioral traits beyond a basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The redundant RPC string could be omitted, but overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations; description is minimal. It fails to explain what happens when enabled (e.g., tracking persists until disabled), return values, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent under-informed for a simple toggle tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for well-documented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool tracks widget repaints for performance issues, with the specific RPC name. It includes a verb ('track') and resource ('widget repaints'), making it distinct from sibling tools like inspector_track_rebuild_dirty_widgets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to enable or disable repaint tracking, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It merely states it's an RPC call that retrieves a mapping, without disclosing details like performance implications, connection requirements, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence). The 'RPC:' prefix is somewhat redundant but doesn't harm clarity. No wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema, yet the description does not specify the return format or structure. It also omits any conditions for use, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description of the port parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a mapping of widget IDs to their source code locations, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling inspector tools by specifying the mapping purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about suitable contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., triggering layout rebuild), permissions needed, or constraints. The description is minimal and leaves agent uninformed about tool behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes minimal but useful RPC identifier. Could be slightly more informative without being verbose, so a 4 fits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should clarify return value. It does not mention whether tool returns success/failure or any data. Also lacks context about flex child widget concept and how this tool fits into a workflow with siblings. Incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not explain what 'tight' vs 'loose' means or how to obtain objectId. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the flex fit property of a flex child widget, using specific verb 'set' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like layout_set_flex_factor and layout_set_flex_properties, which set different aspects of flex layout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, no context about prerequisites or expected use cases. It simply states what it does without any when-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions the connection to a Flutter debug port, which adds some context about network interaction, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (enabling/disabling implies mutation), authentication needs, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key context (default port). It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutating operation with network connectivity), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error cases, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in a Flutter debugging context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('enabled' and 'port') in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema, such as format details or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable socket profiling') and the target resource ('socket profiling'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like other debug or profiling tools), though the mention of 'socket profiling' provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'Connects to the default Flutter debug port (8181)', suggesting it's for Flutter debugging scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other profiling or debug tools in the sibling list), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool connects to a Flutter debug port and has a default port, but doesn't describe what 'toggling opacity layers debugging' actually does behaviorally, whether it affects app performance or visual rendering, what permissions are needed, or what the expected outcome is. The description provides basic operational context but lacks important behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and connection details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with implementation details. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (debugging toggle with port configuration), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic operational context but lacks important details about what the tool actually does behaviorally, what effects to expect, or what happens after invocation. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact and use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default port 8181 context, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning about when to use custom ports or what the 'enabled' parameter actually controls beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Toggle opacity layers debugging' with the specific RPC identifier 'ext.flutter.debugDisableOpacityLayers'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the Flutter debug context, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar debug tools like 'debug_disable_clip_layers' or 'debug_disable_physical_shape_layers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'Connects to the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise', which suggests this is for Flutter debugging scenarios. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other debug_disable_* tools or when debugging opacity layers is appropriate versus other debugging options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions connecting to a debug port, implying network interaction and potential side effects, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it affects app performance, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded and efficient, consisting of two concise sentences that cover the RPC call and port behavior without any wasted words. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of debugging tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the render tree is, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites (e.g., requiring a Flutter app in debug mode). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the default port (8181) and the optional nature, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it dumps the render tree via a specific RPC call (ext.flutter.debugDumpRenderTree). It distinguishes itself from siblings like debug_dump_focus_tree or debug_dump_layer_tree by specifying the render tree. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and the option to specify a custom port, suggesting it's for debugging Flutter applications. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_dump_semantics_tree or other debug_dump_* siblings, leaving the context somewhat inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an RPC to set a factor. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires app restart, affects all animations globally, has side effects on performance, or what happens if invalid values are used. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('RPC: Set the time dilation factor') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral context (like whether changes persist). Given the complexity of modifying runtime animation behavior, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain default port behavior or dilation effects beyond the schema's description). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set the time dilation factor') and target resource ('for animations in the Flutter app'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on debugging, inspection, or platform overrides rather than animation timing control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like 'flutter_core_brightness_override' or 'flutter_core_platform_override' suggest different use cases, the description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives for animation speed adjustments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the title, omitting that disposal is destructive, whether it can be undone, or if it triggers side effects like UI updates. The word 'dispose' implies destruction but no details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. However, it could be improved by front-loading the core action and adding a brief context about usage within the inspector workflow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple param tool with no output schema and 100% coverage, the description suffices minimally but lacks usage context and behavioral details that would make it fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with Flutter debugging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning 'widget ID', which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Dispose', the resource 'widget ID', and the rationale 'to free up memory'. It also includes the RPC identifier, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'inspector_dispose_group' that operate on groups rather than individual IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'inspector_dispose_group' or 'inspector_dispose_all_groups'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when it should not be called.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions the default port (8181) and optional custom port, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the summary tree output entails (e.g., format, depth, or performance implications), leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a debug environment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding connection details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from configuration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (interacting with Flutter debug ports), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and connection details but misses behavioral aspects like error handling or output format. It's adequate for a simple read operation but could benefit from more context for debugging scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'objectId' and 'port'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the default port (8181) and optional nature of 'port', but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the children summary tree for a widget' with the specific RPC method 'ext.flutter.inspector.getChildrenSummaryTree'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspector_get_parent_chain' or 'inspector_get_root_widget_summary_tree' by focusing on children of a specific widget, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning connection to the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise, which suggests it's for debugging Flutter applications. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspector_get_children_details_subtree' or 'inspector_get_details_subtree', leaving the choice ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Remove' without disclosing whether it's destructive, permissions needed, or side effects. The schema does not compensate for this lack of behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. Extremely concise and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it's a mutation tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain what happens after removal, return values, or error conditions. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'root directories from pub packages', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'inspector_add_pub_root_directories'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add, get, or set. Lacks context for prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is a 'helper' and 'for discovering', which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words on unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the basic purpose and usage intent, but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or integration with the broader debugging workflow. For a discovery tool with no output schema, more information about what the returned data looks like would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (isRawResponse, isolateId, port). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available extension RPCs in the Flutter app' with the specific verb 'list' and resource 'extension RPCs'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on RPC discovery rather than debugging, profiling, or inspection functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'get_supported_protocols' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by calling it 'a helper tool for discovering available methods', suggesting it should be used for exploration or debugging setup. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_supported_protocols' or other debugging tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'dispose' and 'free up memory' implying destruction, but fails to detail side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that includes the RPC name in parentheses. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain a groupId or what happens after disposal, which could hinder correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only restates the tool's function. No extra context like value ranges or sources for groupId is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Dispose', the resource 'specific inspector group', and the purpose 'to free up memory'. It also includes the RPC name for clarity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'inspector_dispose_all_groups' by specifying 'specific'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspector_dispose_all_groups' or 'inspector_dispose_id'. The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the connection to a Flutter debug port, which hints at network interaction and potential dependencies, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling, response format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and additional context in the second. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and connection details without redundancy or unnecessary information, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (involving Flutter debugging and network ports), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and port parameter but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values. While it's adequate for a simple read operation, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what 'summary information' entails, which it does not, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'port' documented as optional for customizing the Flutter debug port. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the default port (8181) and the optional nature, but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ranges or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get summary information about the currently selected widget in the Flutter app.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('summary information'), and context ('currently selected widget in the Flutter app'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspector_get_selected_widget' or 'inspector_get_children_summary_tree', which reduces the score from 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning it connects to the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise, which suggests when to use this tool for debugging Flutter apps. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'inspector_get_selected_widget' or other inspector tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. This results in an implied usage score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions the default port (8181) and that it connects to Flutter debug, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, potential side effects, performance impact, or how results are accessed. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by connection details. It is concise with only two sentences, no redundant information, and efficiently conveys essential context without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and connection info but lacks completeness for a debugging tool. It does not cover behavioral traits, output format, or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters ('enabled' and 'port'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of enabling/disabling tracking or port usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Track widget rebuilds to identify performance issues.' It specifies the verb ('track'), resource ('widget rebuilds'), and goal ('identify performance issues'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'inspector_is_widget_creation_tracked' or 'inspector_get_children_details_subtree', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning connection to the Flutter debug port, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other inspector tools for debugging). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions connecting to a debug port, implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it requires Flutter app to be in debug mode, potential performance impact, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and RPC method, the second provides the default port and customization option. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., Flutter app must be running in debug mode), expected output format, error conditions, and behavioral implications, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'port' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default port 8181, but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid port ranges or connection behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Dump the layer tree' with the specific RPC method 'ext.flutter.debugDumpLayerTree'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'debug_dump_focus_tree' and 'debug_dump_render_tree' by specifying the layer tree. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar debug dump tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when needing to dump the layer tree in Flutter debugging, with guidance on the default port (8181) and option to specify another. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 that this is a 'VM service method' and specifies the default port (8181), adding useful context. However, it does not cover other behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or whether it's read-only/destructive, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context (purpose, port details) but lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'supported protocols' entails, the return format, or error scenarios, which are important for a tool with no structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'port' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the default port (8181) and the optional nature, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get supported protocols from a Flutter app.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('supported protocols'), and distinguishes it as a 'VM service method, not a Flutter RPC.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vm_info' or 'get_extension_rpcs', which might have overlapping scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by mentioning it connects to 'the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise,' which helps in understanding when to use custom ports. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'get_' tools in the sibling list) or any prerequisites for operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, blocking nature, or prerequisites. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with 'RPC' context, efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple check tool with one optional parameter. However, lacks information about the return value (e.g., boolean). Slight gap given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with description for the single parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Check', resource 'widget tree', and condition 'ready for inspection'. Differentiates from sibling inspector tools that perform actual inspection or retrieve data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage as a prerequisite for other inspector tools, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 that this is an RPC call and specifies the default port behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether this affects app state), performance implications, error conditions, or what the dumped output looks like. For a debugging tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and RPC method, the second provides the default port context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (debugging RPC call), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and port usage but lacks details on output format, error handling, or dependencies. For a tool that likely returns structured debugging data, more context would be helpful, though the absence of an output schema isn't compensated here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the default port (8181) and that it's optional, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Dump the semantics tree' with the specific RPC method 'ext.flutter.debugDumpSemanticsTreeInTraversalOrder'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'debug_dump_focus_tree' and 'debug_dump_render_tree' by specifying semantics tree. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'debug_dump_semantics_tree_inverse', which appears to be a related sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'Connects to the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise', indicating when to use the optional port parameter. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context implies it's for debugging Flutter semantics trees, which is sufficient for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default port connection behavior, but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., whether it blocks the app, requires debug mode, returns image data or path, error conditions, or authentication needs). For a tool that presumably captures visual output, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose with technical specificity, the second provides important default behavior context. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose and parameter context but lacks crucial behavioral details about execution, return values, and error handling. For a tool that presumably produces visual output, the absence of information about what format or how the screenshot is returned represents a significant gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional port parameter. The description mentions the default port (8181) and that it can be overridden, which aligns with but doesn't add meaningful value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Take a screenshot') and target resource ('of the Flutter app'), with the RPC method name providing precise technical identification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on screenshot capture rather than debugging, profiling, or file operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for taking screenshots of Flutter apps via debug port) and mentions the default port behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools for different debugging tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must stand alone. States it disposes groups and frees memory, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites (e.g., if groups are currently in use). Adequate for a simple deallocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loading the action and purpose. No extraneous text; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple disposal tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. Includes the RPC identifier for debugging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameter (port) with description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Dispose all inspector groups') and purpose ('free up memory'). Distinct from sibling 'inspector_dispose_group' by specifying 'all groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: use when needing to free memory by disposing all groups. No explicit when-not or alternative suggestions, e.g., vs 'inspector_dispose_group'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it's a local utility, which implies no network calls, but does not detail permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying context. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple utility. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, port types) and behavioral aspects like error handling, which could be useful for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in more complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, and baseline is 4 for zero parameters as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get list of ports') and resource ('where Flutter/Dart processes are listening'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on debugging, inspection, or other utilities. It explicitly notes this is a local utility rather than a Flutter RPC method, which helps differentiate it from network-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying it's for local Flutter/Dart processes, implying usage when monitoring local development environments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as for network ports or other debugging purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a subscription/RPC method and mentions the default port behavior, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't describe what happens after subscription (e.g., how events are delivered, whether this is persistent, error conditions, or authentication needs), leaving significant gaps for a tool that establishes a monitoring connection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: identifies it as an RPC method, specifies its purpose for event monitoring, and provides default port information. No wasted words and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a subscription tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (stream connection confirmation? event data format?), how long subscriptions last, or error handling. While it covers the basic purpose and connection details, significant behavioral aspects remain undocumented for a tool that establishes ongoing monitoring.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default port context for the 'port' parameter, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Subscribe to a Flutter event stream'), identifies the resource ('Flutter event stream'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it's an RPC method for VM service event monitoring. It explicitly mentions connection to the Flutter debug port, which differentiates it from file, inspector, and debugging tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('for event monitoring') and specifies the default port (8181) unless overridden. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the basic action of enabling/disabling profiling but lacks details on side effects, persistence, or required permissions. For a simple toggle, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers the core action. However, it does not explain the effects of enabling/disabling or typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the default port value (8181) not present in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'profiling of render object paint operations', and includes the RPC extension name, distinguishing it from the sibling tool for layouts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does 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 like performance_profile_render_object_layouts, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Arenukvern/mcp_flutter'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server