diagnose_setup

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: lists exact checks (Kotlin version, Gradle, etc.) and return structure. No contradictions, and it enriches agent understanding of behavior.

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-organized with clear sections (Android checks, iOS checks, Args, Returns). It is concise yet comprehensive, using bullet-like structure and plain text efficiently.

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 multi-platform checks, the description covers all relevant aspects: project path requirement, platform-specific checks, and return format. It provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand the tool's full scope.

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 description explains the 'project_path' parameter comprehensively: 'Absolute path to the Flutter project root (the directory containing android/ and ios/).' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Project Path' title, which had 0% coverage.

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: diagnose Flutter + Stripe project setup. It lists specific checks for Android and iOS, making the scope precise. With no sibling tools, it stands alone effectively.

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 diagnosing Flutter+Stripe projects. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but given no siblings, the absence is acceptable. It provides clear context for use.

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