get_file_outline

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

The description reveals output behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: results are grouped by file and include kind, signature, and range. It also gives a cost-oriented hint. This adds useful context without contradicting annotations.

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 compact sentences. The core meaning is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical usage guidance without redundancy.

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 basic use with only required parameters, the description is adequate: it tells the agent what the tool returns and when to use it. However, with no output schema, minimal annotations, and several optional parameters that affect pagination and response format, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to fully understand invocation options.

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 0% and there are 8 parameters, but the description only clarifies the notion of a path and, ambiguously, 'kind' as an output field. Parameters like limit, cursor, view, include_members, and response_format are left completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 operation: retrieving declarations under a path, grouped by file, with kind, signature, and range. This clearly goes beyond restating the tool name, though it does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself with get_source or get_symbol.

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 explicit guidance to use this for a package and hints that reading a single small file directly is cheaper. It does not name the alternative tool or provide a formal when-not-to-use list, but the intended context is clear.

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