document_outline

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

The verb 'List' suggests a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it does not modify the document. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of explicit transparency.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential action and output format without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

The description provides the output format ({index, style, text}) and the intent, which partially covers context. However, it omits any explanation of the 'path' parameter and does not describe the output schema in detail, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.

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 only parameter, 'path', has no description and the schema provides no coverage. The description does not clarify what 'path' refers to (e.g., file system path, document ID, or a path within a document structure), leaving the meaning ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List every paragraph as {index, style, text} so you can target one.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on footnotes, sources, citations, and document creation.

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 implies a use case ('so you can target one') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings. It lacks guidance on context, such as 'use this before adding footnotes' or 'for read-only paragraph inspection.'

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