Document outline

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds useful traits beyond them: it follows \input/\include from the main document and reports file:line for each heading. This reveals traversal behavior and output shape. It does not mention permissions or limits, but the added behavioral detail exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the resource, traversal rule, and output format into one tight line.

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 does explain the return content (outline of parts/chapters/sections with file:line). It is nearly complete for a read-only outline tool, though it could say more about the returned structure or failure behavior if no main document is found.

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 fully documents project and rootFile. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as how rootFile interacts with \input traversal. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (document outline) and its scope: parts, chapters, sections, resolved through \input/\include from the main document. It gives enough detail to distinguish it from get_section and list_files, though it is not phrased as a clean verb+resource.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance is provided. An agent can infer that this retrieves the project outline, but the description never mentions get_section or other sibling tools that could also inspect document structure.

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