flutter_test

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool executes tests and returns only a summary of failed tests, not full errors, and it implies that the summary contains test IDs that can be used with flutter_get_result. It could additionally mention side effects such as builds or generated artifacts, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 short sentences deliver the essential information without filler. The first sentence states the action and output, and the second sentence provides the follow-up alternative. The most important behavioral detail is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 straightforward test-runner tool, the description is reasonably complete. The output is described as a summary, and the connection to flutter_get_result covers the follow-up path for full error details. The schema handles parameter semantics, and the problem of distinguishing from siblings is mostly solved by the explicit 'flutter tests' phrasing. A fully exhaustive comparison with every sibling is not necessary 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 input schema already documents all four parameters (project_dir, test_name, test_path, extra_args) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It neither obscures nor enriches the parameter semantics.

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 action and resource: 'Run flutter tests'. It also clearly identifies the output as 'a summary of failed tests' and points to flutter_get_result for full details, which distinguishes this tool from its closest sibling. This makes its purpose unambiguous within the provided sibling set.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to run Flutter tests and get a failure summary. It explicitly routes the agent to flutter_get_result for full error details, providing a direct alternative. It does not, however, mention when not to use this tool in favor of flutter_run or other related commands, though the phrase 'flutter tests' largely disambiguates that.

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