perch_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what it returns (declarations, not full text) and its use case, and "map" implies a read-only orientation operation. It omits behavioral detail like the default 400-entry truncation, whether output listing is capped, or scope limits over a large file.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core function is stated first, followed by the orienting rationale. Nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage, and the description conveys enough to call it correctly. Without an output schema, it partially explains the return shape (a line map), though it stops short of detailing format or truncation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (pane enum and limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., what pane 'model' vs 'output' implies). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific output type (a line map of function/class/const declarations) and its purpose (orienting in a large file). An agent can tell it produces an outline rather than file contents, but it never names a sibling it is not.

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?

"Orient in a 40k-line file without reading it all" implies a when-to-use context (large file, reconnaissance before reading). However, it does not name alternatives such as perch_read or perch_grep that an agent should pick instead when it needs actual content or pattern search.

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