Find Flutter Widget [Pro]

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

The description mentions that the tool searches the widget tree and returns source locations, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool modifies the app state, or any limitations like performance impact. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short of explaining all behavioral traits.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and scope, second gives examples, third describes output. It could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 has 2 parameters (both covered by schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive context. It covers purpose, search scope, and output, but omits details like return format, pagination, or error conditions. For a search tool in a complex environment, more detail would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'summary_only' filters to user-created widgets, which is not explicitly in the schema description (which says 'Search only user-created widgets (true) or full tree (false)'). However, the description does not elaborate on the 'query' parameter beyond the schema. 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 that the tool searches the widget tree for widgets matching a query, and it specifies searchable attributes (type name, description, text content). It provides example queries and states the return value (matching widgets with source locations). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'find_element' or 'flutter_get_widget_tree', which have similar purposes.

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 by giving examples of queries and mentioning search scopes (widget type, text, description). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'find_element'), nor does it provide scenarios where it might not be appropriate or prerequisites. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative context.

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