audit_flutter_security

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool both audits and scaffolds, but doesn't explain side effects—e.g., whether it modifies files, whether it's destructive, auth requirements, or the nature of the output. The scaffolding action is implied but its impact is unclear.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The audit function is front-loaded, and the scaffolding is secondary. However, it could be more structured by separating audit and scaffold phases or mentioning output.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and the description omits critical context: prerequisites (must be an existing Flutter project?), side effects (does it overwrite files?), operation modes (does it audit only if no flags set?), and return behavior. For a combined audit+scaffold tool, this is a significant gap.

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 schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (codeSnippet, enableBiometrics, enableCertificatePinning) at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify parameter usage or dependencies, so the 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 it audits Flutter code for security issues and scaffolds secure components (Keychain, biometrics, SSL pinning). This distinguishes it from general audit tools like audit_flutter_codebase or audit_flutter_accessibility, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_flutter_codebase for general audits). It doesn't mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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