Build Flutter runtime payload

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specifics: 'replaces the payload output directory', 'expect build time, disk writes, and build diagnostics', and discloses invocation of the local Flutter SDK. These details go beyond the annotations and inform the agent of side effects and external dependencies.

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 three sentences with a front-loaded core action, followed by usage context and side-effect warnings. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a side-effect-heavy build tool, and the description covers prerequisites ('source Flutter code is available'), pipeline sequencing relative to siblings, and behavioral expectations. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation in the description. The tool is well-contextualized for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions including enum meanings and defaults. The description references 'selected Android ABIs' and 'source Flutter code' at a high level but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Build a Flutter project into native libraries and flutter_assets for the selected Android ABIs', specifying the exact action, resource, and output. It distinguishes itself from injection siblings by framing the result as 'ready for injection', making its role in the pipeline unambiguous.

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 gives explicit placement: 'Use it after target ABI analysis and before injection when source Flutter code is available', and names an alternative when artifacts already exist. This clearly differentiates it from inject_flutter_runtime_and_smali and provides concrete when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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