level_outliner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the read-only verb 'Return,' indicating no mutation, but it does not clarify whether actor counts are recursive or direct-only per folder, nor how invalid root_folder values are handled. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 one sentence of about 15 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no waste or 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 a read-only query with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a clear high-level result and is distinct from siblings. It does not detail the exact response format or count scoping, but it is sufficient for basic 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 schema covers the single optional parameter with a description ('Optional subtree root to start from'), meeting the high coverage baseline. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'World Outliner folder tree structure' with the further detail 'actor counts per folder.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like level_actors (which lists actors) and actor_organize (which modifies folders).

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 usage for reading the folder hierarchy, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like level_actors. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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