audit_flutter_codebase

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 states what the tool audits but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies code, requires specific permissions, or how it reports findings. It doesn't mention if it's read-only or if it can suggest fixes. For a tool that audits code, the agent needs to know if it's safe to run on production code or if it makes changes.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the audit categories. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Audits' and the resource. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the categories.

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 is adequate for a simple audit tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. However, it doesn't explain what the output looks like (report format, severity levels, etc.) which an agent might need to know. It also doesn't mention whether the audit is synchronous or asynchronous, or if there are limits on code snippet size.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The fileType enum is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 audits Flutter/Dart source code for specific issue categories (performance bottlenecks, missing const constructors, controller memory leaks, architectural violations). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling audit tools like audit_flutter_accessibility or audit_flutter_security, but the focus on performance/const/leaks/architecture is distinct enough.

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 implies usage for code auditing but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_flutter_accessibility or audit_flutter_security. It doesn't mention when not to use it or provide context on selecting between audit tools. The fileType parameter hints at usage context but the description doesn't elaborate.

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