get_document_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey the key fallback behavior: return PDF bookmarks if available, otherwise a heuristic section map. It does not, however, state side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Return' implies non-mutating.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and output type, and no filler. This is as concise as possible while still conveying the tool's core behavior and fallback.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the two required parameters are simple strings. Still, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, so the definition is only minimally complete for an agent choosing among siblings.

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%, so the description needed to explain what accession_number and filename mean, but it does not. The phrase 'stored filing' offers only weak context; the parameter names themselves are doing 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?

Description names a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource: 'PDF bookmarks or a heuristic section map for a stored filing.' This makes the output clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_filing_text or read_document, which return content rather than a document outline.

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?

Description gives no explicit when-to-use advice and does not mention any sibling alternative, so an agent must infer from the tool name and output type when to select it over get_filing_text or search_within_document. There are no exclusion conditions or prerequisites stated.

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