Flutter MCP

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 effectively describes what the tool does (parses mentions and returns documentation), provides examples of supported patterns, and specifies default values and constraints (tokens default: 4000, min: 500). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, provides important compatibility notes, lists supported patterns with examples, documents parameters clearly, and specifies the return format. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero redundancy.

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 (parsing multiple mention patterns, documentation retrieval), the description provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and return format. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on explaining what the tool does rather than detailing return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter information. It explains both parameters: 'text: Text containing @flutter_mcp mentions' and 'tokens: Maximum token limit for each mention's documentation (default: 4000, min: 500).' This adds crucial semantic context beyond the bare schema, including purpose, constraints, and default values.

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: 'Parse text for @flutter_mcp mentions and return relevant documentation.' It specifies the verb (parse), resource (text with mentions), and output (documentation). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming flutter_docs and flutter_search as preferred alternatives for new integrations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states: 'This tool is maintained for backward compatibility. For new integrations, consider using the unified tools directly: flutter_docs and flutter_search.' This clearly indicates the tool's legacy status and recommends specific alternatives by name.

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