Preview a file's structure before reading it by listing headings, JSON keys, or config parts with line numbers and token sizes; optionally show backlinks and outbound links.
Parts of a file before reading it (headings | JSON keys | config parts) with lines and size_tok.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Project-relative path. | |
| links | No | Also documents linking here and where its links lead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns structural parts with lines and token size, but it does not describe the output format in detail (e.g., structured vs. markdown) or any limitations. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The term 'size_tok' is slightly cryptic but still efficient; every phrase contributes to the 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?
For a read-only outline tool with no output schema, the description gives a minimal sketch of return values (headings, JSON keys, config parts, lines, size_tok). It omits details about output formatting and does not differentiate from sibling tools like `map`, leaving some ambiguity an agent might need to resolve by trial.
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 100%, and the schema fully documents both `path` and `links`. The description does not mention the `links` parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema is complete.
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 resource (parts of a file) and names concrete output types (headings, JSON keys, config parts) with supplemental data (lines, size_tok). The phrase 'before reading it' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling `read` tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'before reading it' clearly signals when to use this tool: to get a structural overview prior to full content retrieval. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are given, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.