get_page_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from local cache, performs no API calls, and resolves component references to [ComponentName] (ComponentId). However, it does not specify what happens if the page is not cached (e.g., error versus empty result), leaving a minor transparency gap.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, a key behavior (component resolution), and a prerequisite/alternative. No filler or 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?

The description covers purpose, cache behavior, contents, and related tools, which is strong for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It falls short of a 5 by not describing the expected return format or error behavior when a page is missing from cache, which would make it fully self-contained.

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%, and the schema already explains the either/or relationship between pageName and scaffoldId. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, only mentions component IDs in output, which is not a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get a readable summary of a FlutterFlow page from local cache' and enumerates the contents (widget tree, actions, params, state). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to get_component_summary for component drill-down and mentioning sync_project as a prerequisite.

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 context: it is a local-cache read ('No API calls'), requires sync_project if not cached, and directs users to get_component_summary for component-level details. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a concrete alternative for further drilling.

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