inspector_get_children_summary_tree

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.