get_custom_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is cache-based, performs no API calls, and that sync_project may be needed first. These are important behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but the disclosure is adequate for a read-only local operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a key usage prerequisite. Every word contributes value, with no wasted text, and the structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains what the output will include (signatures, arguments, return types, optional source code) and provides context about the cache and sync_project prerequisite. It is comprehensive for a retrieval tool, though it does not describe error cases or empty results. Overall, it is well-rounded for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the output content (signatures, arguments, return types, optionally Dart source) which indirectly relates to includeCode, but it does not provide per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without adding significant parameter-level value.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and enumerates the resource types: custom actions, functions, widgets, AI agents, app action components, and custom files. It also states the source (local cache) and what is returned (signatures, arguments, return types, optionally Dart source), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_pages or get_page_by_name.

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 context: it reads from local cache, makes no API calls, and instructs to run sync_project first if not cached. This gives clear usage direction and a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

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