Outline a local guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral detail: it returns heading offsets (not full content). This clarifies what the tool produces without contradicting annotations. However, it does not describe the format or granularity of offsets, which is a minor gap given the annotations cover the key safety traits.

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 sentence with zero waste. The core action ('Get heading offsets') is front-loaded, and the purpose is stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it tells what it does and why. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned offsets (e.g., list of sections, byte ranges, line numbers) or the exact input format for 'path'. Since there is no output schema, this gap is notable, though the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotations mitigate the impact.

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 schema has one parameter, 'path', with only length constraints and no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not clarify what 'path' refers to (e.g., a local file path, a reference identifier, or a URL). The title 'Outline a local guide' hints at the resource type, but the description does not explain the expected format or semantics of 'path'. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 verb ('Get'), a resource ('heading offsets'), and a clear purpose ('so only the relevant section needs to be read'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_local_reference, which would retrieve full content, and search_local_references, which would search. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 when to use it ('so only the relevant section needs to be read'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer that this should be used before reading a long local reference, but it does not reference sibling tools or state when not to use it. This is adequate but not explicit.

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