get_file_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the output (structure with line numbers), but it does not disclose potential requirements such as the file needing to be indexed, error behavior, or whether the tool reads from a cached index. Basic transparency, but lacking depth.

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 that states the action and the expected output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it concise and easily scannable.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and a clear output specification, the description is largely complete. It explains what the output contains, which is necessary since there is no output schema. However, it could mention that the file must be part of an indexed project, though this is covered by the parameter descriptions. Overall, sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (filePath and directory) with meaningful descriptions, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the structure of a file' and lists the specific elements (functions, classes, imports, exports) with line numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_symbols or search_code, which focus on searching rather than providing a structural outline.

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 implies the tool is used when a structural overview of a file is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from search_code.

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