inspector_get_children_details_subtree

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.

Is 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.

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 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.