get_file_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses AST (not API), outputs approximately 200 tokens, and is part of a multi-step process. It does not cover error handling or edge cases but provides sufficient behavioral context for a simple read-only 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?

The description is extremely concise (approximately 60 words) and front-loaded with the most critical information (step, purpose). Every sentence adds value, and directives are clearly marked with attention-grabbing language ('STEP 2', 'NEVER').

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, behavior, and next steps adequately. It could be improved by briefly noting the output format beyond 'lists top-level symbols', but the lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap. The sibling tool context further enriches completeness.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'file', which is well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema states, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists top-level symbols (functions/classes/types/hooks) with line ranges and imports/exports, using specific verb 'lists' and resource 'file outline'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_folded and get_symbol by positioning itself as step 2 and specifying what it covers.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('STEP 2 of token-efficient exploration'), when not to use alternatives ('NEVER Read the whole file'), and what to do next ('call get_file_folded for signatures+JSDoc, or get_symbol for full source of ONE symbol'). This is exemplary for directing an AI agent's workflow.

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