outliner-describe

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'describe' which implies a read operation, but does not clarify return format, behavior on missing targets, or any side effects. It lacks specifics like whether it's non-destructive or requires particular permissions.

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, highly concise with no redundancies. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it is so brief that it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (multiple kinds, a default, 2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'describe' returns, how to use the kind parameter, or any edge cases, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 description does not explain the 'kind' or 'target' parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It lists the kinds implicitly in the prose but fails to clarify how the kind parameter interacts or what format target should be in, leaving 0% schema coverage uncompensated.

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 action (describe) and the resource (object, collection, scene, or view layer by name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like outliner-visibility_set by focusing on description, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or scope beyond the listed kinds.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description implies use when you need to describe a named datablock, but doesn't mention when to prefer this over other outliner tools like outliner-find or outliner-tree, nor does it state any prerequisites or context.

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