outline

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 makes the read-only nature reasonably clear by describing an outline listing and advising a subsequent range read, and it explains the folder-wide scope. It says nothing about limits or cost when pointing at a large directory, permissions, or failure modes on invalid paths.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the range-read advice, then the argument note. The Args block is near-redundant with the schema and the sample output string adds a little noise, but the size is appropriate for a single-parameter tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, yet it still conveys the line-range format usefully. For a 1-parameter tool it is broadly complete, but the folder case (recursion depth, file-type filtering) and behavior on large trees are unaddressed, and the description is written in Spanish while the surrounding tool metadata is English.

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 coverage is 0% — the schema only says a required string named 'path'. The description meaningfully adds that it must be an absolute path and may refer to either a file or a folder, which the schema does not convey. It leaves ambiguity around relative paths, symlinks, or glob patterns unresolved.

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 concrete output: the functions and classes of a file, or of every file in a folder, including their line ranges. That is a specific resource and scope rather than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'overview', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It gives a follow-up workflow hint ('Lee después solo ese rango, no el archivo entero'), which implies the intended use — cheap navigation before a targeted read. It offers no explicit when-to-use versus 'overview', 'learn' or 'check', nor any exclusion criteria, so guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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