dart_docs

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 is a read/search operation which is implied by 'Search', but the description doesn't clarify whether this hits a network API, has rate limits, or what happens for partial matches or unknown class names. It does note the return shape (description, properties, methods, constructors) which adds moderate transparency value.

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 sentence that is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes the return content list which is useful. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative about usage context without becoming verbose.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete: it covers what it does and what it returns. However, there is no output schema, so the description's mention of returned fields (description, properties, methods, constructors) is the only return information available. It doesn't address edge cases like empty results or whether multiple classes can match a query, which for a search tool would be useful.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The schema documents 'query' as the class name to look up with helpful examples ('Future', 'Stream', 'List', 'Map') and 'library' with example values. The description adds marginal value beyond this, only indicating that results include description/properties/methods/constructors. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles parameter documentation well.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search Dart API docs') and enumerates the returned content (description, properties, methods, constructors). It is clear about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from its sibling tools like dart_language_ref or flutter_docs, though the focus on 'core library classes' partially differentiates it.

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 the tool is for looking up Dart core library class documentation, which gives some usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus dart_language_ref (for language syntax) or flutter_docs, no exclusions, and no mention of when a different sibling would be more appropriate. There is no alternative tool named as a fallback.

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