search_flet_examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds beyond that: results are runnable projects (not just snippets or file paths), each result requires a follow-up fetch for full source, and it searches the official repo only. No contradiction with annotations and no dangerous hidden behavior left undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core search action appears in the first sentence, scoping details and workflow guidance follow, and the structured Args block cleanly documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place; the example list and the learning rationale both add real signal rather than padding.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, this is complete. Both parameters are documented with defaults and examples, result semantics are explained, the follow-up workflow is specified, and the return structure is left to the existing output schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It documents both parameters with concrete guidance: query gets keyword semantics plus five illustrative examples ('counter', 'todo', 'routing', 'drag', 'animation', 'form validation'), and max_results gets its default value stated. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search the official Flet example apps in the flet repo... by keyword.' It clearly scopes what is searched (runnable example projects, not API docs or internal source), and explicitly names the sibling follow-up (get_flet_example), distinguishing it from the other search and read siblings. The example list (counter, todo, 7guis, routing) further pins down the resource domain.

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 clear usage context: 'Reading a real example is the fastest way to learn correct Flet idioms for a pattern,' and it explicitly routes the agent to the next step, 'fetch its full source with get_flet_example.' It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like search_flet_docs or search_flet_source, but the learning-idioms rationale implies the selection condition well enough.

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