get_file_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful detail beyond the tool name: it returns only high-level declarations, includes line ranges and signatures, and does not dump raw bodies. However, it does not address error cases, language limitations, or the exact response structure.

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?

Single sentence, tightly packed with useful detail: result type, symbol kinds, returned attributes, and the key contrast with raw file bodies. No wasted words.

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?

This is a simple read-only outline tool, and the description covers its main output behavior. With no output schema, describing the return contents (line ranges and signatures) is helpful, though explicit mention of workspaceRoot handling or alternatives like find_all_usages would make it fully complete.

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 schema already documents filePath and workspaceRoot. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('high-level symbol declarations'), enumerates concrete symbol categories, and contrasts with 'raw file bodies.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependency_graph or find_all_usages.

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 the tool is for structural overviews without reading full file contents, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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