flutter_docs

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 a read/search operation implicitly, but doesn't disclose specifics like whether it hits the network, whether results are cached, pagination/limit behavior, failure modes (no results found?), or what happens with ambiguous queries. For a search tool this is a moderate gap.

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 purpose and follows with return-content detail. It has zero wasted words. However, it under-specifies rather than being verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape more fully. It lists what's returned generically (description, properties, methods, constructors) but for a docs-search tool with 13 siblings, more specificity about result structure, ordering, or how the optional type enum affects search behavior would improve completeness. The tool has moderate complexity (entity types, optional narrowing) that calls for more detail.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well (query examples and type enum). The description adds the return-content detail (description, properties, methods, constructors) which contextualizes what the query leads to, but baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds only marginal semantic value beyond the schema examples.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('Flutter API docs') and lists the entity types covered (class, widget, method, enum). It also states what it returns (description, properties, methods, constructors). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from siblings like 'dart_docs' or 'flutter_widget_lookup', though its Flutter-specific and returns-content scope is reasonably clear.

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 states what the tool searches but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives. Given many siblings (flutter_knowledge, flutter_source_search, dart_docs, dart_language_ref), there is no when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. 'Type hint to narrow the search' hints at usage but doesn't clarify when to prefer one entity type or which sibling handles related queries.

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