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 key behaviors: the scope of sources searched ('Flutter API docs, Dart API docs, and pub.dev packages'), result limits ('top 5-10 most relevant results'), and output format ('brief descriptions'). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, which would be beneficial for a search tool.

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, immediately highlights deprecation, then details sources, results, and parameters. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficient for an agent to parse and use.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, deprecation, sources, result limits, and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them, and it addresses key gaps from the lack of annotations.

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 context for both parameters: 'query' is explained with examples (e.g., 'state management'), and 'tokens' specifies default and minimum values ('default: 5000, min: 500'). This goes beyond the schema's basic types, though it could clarify token usage more (e.g., per result or total).

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: 'Search across Flutter/Dart documentation sources with fuzzy matching.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Flutter/Dart documentation sources'), and method ('fuzzy matching'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_flutter_docs' (likely retrieval) or 'flutter_search' (its replacement).

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 marks the tool as 'DEPRECATED' and directs users to 'use flutter_search() instead,' with reasons ('better filtering and more structured results'). This clearly indicates when not to use this tool and names the alternative, helping the agent avoid deprecated functionality.

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