get_file_outline

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which strongly implies the tool may have destructive or mutating behavior, but the description describes a read-only operation (getting an outline) and provides no mention of any side effects or destructive actions. This is a clear contradiction. The description also fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides, and with annotations carrying a conflicting hint, transparency is severely lacking.

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 sentence that packs significant detail without excessive verbosity. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Declaration outline of one exact repository-relative file') and then lists key features concisely. It is dense but not bloated, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 has six parameters and no output schema, the description does not fully explain the return format or behavior. The contradiction with destructiveHint adds confusion, and the description omits any mention of error cases or prerequisites. The description covers basic functionality but is incomplete for an agent to use confidently, especially with the conflicting annotation.

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 description adds meaning for some parameters: 'optional exact label filter' corresponds to the labels array, and 'exact total/offset/limit paging' explains limit and offset semantics. However, it does not explain the project parameter, the format enum, or the meaning of 'source order' in detail. With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for half the parameters.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving a declaration outline for a specific repository-relative file, and mentions key features like label filtering and paging. It distinguishes itself by scoping to a single file and explicitly excluding file/folder/container nodes, which differentiates it from broader tools like get_architecture or search_graph. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage when an agent needs a declaration outline of a specific file, and the phrase 'exact repository-relative file' sets context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some inference required. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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