flutter_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key behavior of returning a run_id for subsequent development commands. However, it does not mention whether the app process stays running, how to stop it (e.g., flutter_kill), or any side effects, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 filler. The action is stated first and the return value / integration with sibling tools is second, giving the agent the most important information up front.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential output (run_id) and its role in the sibling-tool workflow, while the input schema covers all five parameters. It could add lifecycle detail such as background execution or stopping via flutter_kill, but the core usage loop is complete.

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 each parameter is already documented in the input schema (device, is_debug, extra_args, dont_detach, project_dir). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond tying run_id to the downstream tools, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') with a clear resource ('a Flutter app') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its siblings by noting it returns a run_id for hot_reload, hot_restart, and logs. This makes it easy for an agent to separate flutter_run from flutter_test, flutter_build, or the hot-reload tools.

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 establishes a clear workflow context: start the app first, then use the returned run_id with hot_reload, hot_restart, and logs. It does not explicitly call out when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated downstream integration gives enough context for correct selection.

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