sourceOutline

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already in the annotations, the description adds the meaningful trait that the outline is generated by text scanning, which explains its uniform applicability to programs, includes, and function groups. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: defining the output, giving the use case, and noting robustness. There is no filler or repetition, and the core result is front-loaded.

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 conveys the essential result (line-indexed block list), the source types it works on, and the intended workflow. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape, but the schema covers parameters and the annotations cover safety.

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 explains objectSourceUrl, kinds, version, and searchIncludes. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is required for a baseline score.

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 identifies a concrete product: a table of contents of an ABAP source listing block types and their starting lines. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic source readers, although it never names a sibling alternative.

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 trigger ('read this before paging through a long report or class') and frames the value as locating subroutines in one call. It does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative, so it stops short of a full decision rule.

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