flutter_error_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's behavior reasonably (returns solutions with code examples based on pasted error), but doesn't mention how comprehensive the error coverage is, whether it covers all Flutter errors or only 'common' ones, or what the output format looks like. The word 'common' hints at limited scope but is not elaborated.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Each sentence carries meaning: the first states the tool's function, the second gives the user an explicit action. Could arguably be trimmed slightly, but it is appropriately sized for a single-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, given the sibling context (many flutter_* tools), it could benefit from noting that it handles runtime/compile errors specifically, and clarifying the scope of 'common' errors versus exhaustive coverage. The single-parameter simplicity partially compensates for these gaps.

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% - the single required parameter (error_message) is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description reinforces this by telling the user to paste the error message. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the heavy lifting; the description adds minimal parameter context beyond confirming the paste action.

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 combo: 'Diagnose common Flutter errors and get solutions with code examples.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (flutter_docs, dart_docs, flutter_get_sample) by being about error diagnosis rather than reference lookup. The user action ('paste the error message') is explicit.

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 by saying 'paste the error message for diagnosis,' which gives a clear when-to-use signal. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like flutter_docs or flutter_source_search, which might be more appropriate for general API questions rather than error troubleshooting.

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