code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection tool and mentions a byte cap via parameter, but says nothing about permissions, whether output is truncated/ordered, or the cost of tree-wide todos/stats scans. It adds some value but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the domain and then broken into four clearly labeled action clauses. Every clause earns its place by explaining what a distinct action returns, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes each action's return shape (functions/classes/types with line numbers, dependencies, markers, LOC by language), which is what an agent needs to pick an action. It omits output ordering, truncation behavior, and how limit/max_bytes interact with results, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 path, glob, tags, limit, max_bytes and max_depth. The description only restates the per-action applicability (outline/imports vs todos/stats) that the schema itself already encodes, adding no new parameter meaning. 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 names a specific domain (structural views of source code) and enumerates the four actions with their return content, so an agent can tell it apart from file_read or search_text. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly or summarizing a single unifying verb beyond 'views', which keeps it out of the top band.

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 usage rule for one action ('read this before reading the file' for outline) and each action's parameter descriptions state the applicable scope (path is a file for outline/imports, a directory for todos/stats). There is no guidance on when to prefer search_text or fs_list over this tool, so it falls short of 5.

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