get_outline

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what the response contains (parts, chapters, scenes, status, word counts) and what it deliberately omits (prose), which goes beyond the annotation.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion/alternative in the second sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool, the description plus parentId schema note cover the essential call context. It explains the return shape and the no-prose boundary, though it leaves response format details (e.g., how status/word counts are nested) unspecified.

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 50%: parentId is documented ('Limit to one branch. Omit for the whole binder') but projectId is not. The tool description does not add parameter detail, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter; still, the simple parameter names plus the schema's parentId note make this minimally adequate.

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 the resource precisely: 'the structure of a project: its parts, chapters and scenes, with status and word counts.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from read_scene by noting it 'returns no prose,' so an agent can tell what this tool is for at a glance.

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 an explicit when-not and alternative: 'Returns no prose — use read_scene for that.' This directly tells the agent when not to call get_outline and which sibling to choose for content, which is exactly the kind of routing guidance needed.

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