read_file_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (symbols with line ranges) and token consumption behavior for different depth values, which helps the agent anticipate cost. However, it does not mention error handling, path resolution behavior, or the absence of full file content, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately give actionable token estimates. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 lightweight outline tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value and how to control verbosity with depth. It does not explicitly note that a file path is effectively required despite the schema marking no required fields, and edge-case behavior is omitted, but these are minor for this simple tool.

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 documents file, depth, and file_path. The description repeats the token-saving rationale already present in the depth schema and adds no new parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation 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 clearly states that the tool returns a file outline consisting of symbols with line ranges, which is a specific and actionable purpose. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like read_file and read_file_symbol, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 parameter-level guidance (use depth=1 for top-level only) but no explicit advice on when to choose this tool over siblings such as read_file or read_file_symbol. It leaves tool-selection decisions to inference rather than stating when or when not to use this tool.

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