Flutter MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'on-demand' and 'optional smart truncation,' which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'smart truncation' entails beyond token limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then the deprecation warning with reasoning, followed by parameter and return details in a clear format. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, deprecation, parameters, and returns. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or usage constraints more thoroughly.

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 must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: it explains that 'class_name' is for Flutter classes like 'Container,' 'library' specifies libraries like 'widgets,' and 'tokens' defines a maximum token limit with default and min values. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more examples or constraints for parameters like 'library.'

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Flutter class documentation on-demand with optional smart truncation.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Flutter class documentation'), and distinguishes it from the deprecated status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'flutter_docs' beyond the deprecation note, which is more about replacement than functional distinction.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states 'DEPRECATED: This tool is deprecated. Please use flutter_docs() instead' and explains why ('better query resolution and unified interface'). This clearly indicates when not to use this tool and names the alternative, which is ideal for agent decision-making.

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