flutter_core_evict

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It 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.