file_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the outline contains (definitions, imports, importers) and notes that it is cheaper than full file reading. It does not discuss edge cases like partial paths, errors, or cache behavior, but for a simple summary tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact sentences put the core purpose first and the cost/use-case benefit second. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description explains what the result contains and why one would choose this tool. It could be slightly stronger about how this compares to adjacent sibling tools, but nothing essential is missing for a basic invocation.

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 sole parameter is already well described. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents the path parameter.

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 identifies the tool's scope: an outline of one file covering definitions, imports, and reverse-imports. This distinguishes it from generic search or symbol tools by naming the specific resource and output aspects.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a cheaper alternative to reading a file when only relevance matters, and highlights the reverse-import advantage. It does not name sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended scenario is clear.

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