Get Flutter Widget Tree [Pro]

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the default behavior (summary tree), what each widget includes, and the prerequisite. It also mentions the optional parameter effect. This is thorough for a read-only tool, though it could mention that the tree structure might be large or slow for complex apps.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and notable features. It wastes no words. However, the mention of '[Pro]' could be integrated more naturally, but that's minor.

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 low complexity (1 optional boolean parameter), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage prerequisite, and parameter behavior adequately. It doesn't discuss return format or performance, but the parameter is well-described. The context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, with a clear description for the single parameter. The tool description adds the context that summary_only=true returns 'user-created widgets only' and false returns 'full framework tree', which slightly amplifies the schema but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already states. 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 gets the widget tree from a Flutter app, specifies the summary/full tree distinction, and mentions key details like type, properties, source location. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar tools like flutter_find_widget or flutter_get_widget_details, missing the opportunity to clarify when to use this over those.

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 indicates a prerequisite ('Call flutter_connect first'), which is helpful for usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative advice.

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