flutter_kill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state the primary side effect—the running app is terminated—which is useful, but it does not mention failure modes, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the run_id is invalid or the app is already stopped. This is a moderate gap, not a contradiction.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter kill tool with no output schema, the description plus the schema's run_id documentation is mostly sufficient. An agent knows what to kill and which run to reference. A small gap remains around expected failure behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this does not severely compromise usability.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters and already documents run_id as 'The run_id from a previous flutter_run call'. Since the schema provides sufficient semantic meaning, the description does not need to add much. The description adds no new parameter detail, so the baseline score of 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 'Kill a running Flutter app' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like flutter_run and flutter_hot_reload. Even with only one sentence, an agent can identify exactly what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool only makes sense after a flutter_run call, and the run_id parameter references a previous flutter_run. No explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as flutter_clean or hot restart, but the lifecycle context is reasonably clear.

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