get_outline

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the return value and use case, with no disclosure of side effects, authorization needs, performance implications, or data scope limitations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers usage context and purpose. Missing details about output structure, but output schema likely covers that. Slight gap on parameter meaning.

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 0%, so description must document parameters. It mentions doc_id implicitly through context but adds no format, example, or validation beyond the type 'string'. No guidance on how to obtain the doc_id.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns the document outline for EPUB/PDF. The verb 'return' and resource 'outline' are specific. It implies differentiation from sibling tools like read_outline_node by suggesting it's used first for overview, but does not explicitly distinguish.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this first for outline-first navigation, chapter selection, and node-scoped reading.' This tells when to use it, but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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