flutter_logs

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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: logs are capped at 24KB and only the most recent logs are returned. However, it does not mention whether retrieval is read-only, what happens with invalid run_ids, or the output format.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important 24KB cap is stated immediately after the purpose.

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?

This is a simple, low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the essential behavior and the result size cap. It could add more about when logs are available or how they are formatted, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the single parameter run_id is already well documented as coming from a previous flutter_run call. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get logs from a running Flutter app.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and is distinct from siblings like flutter_get_result, flutter_test, or flutter_hot_reload, which address different concerns.

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 after a Flutter app is running and that logs are retrieved, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as flutter_get_result. The need for a run_id from flutter_run is only in the schema, not the description.

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