get_source_outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result is a heading index with position/line metadata, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it is silent on behavior for non-Markdown sources or sources without headings — a real gap given the 'en Markdown' qualifier.

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 well-formed sentence with the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably slightly too terse for a tool whose scope constraints are unstated, but nothing in it 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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the shape of the result. However, it leaves open the important edge case of non-Markdown sources and offers no routing guidance among several overlapping read tools, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 100% and both parameters document how to obtain their values (list_notebooks, list_sources), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (a source's heading index) and enumerates the returned fields (level, title, line, position), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from neighbors like read_source, get_source_guide, or source_stats, which an agent could easily confuse with a structural view of a source.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over read_source, read_source_section, or get_source_guide, and no note about prerequisites (e.g. that the source must be Markdown). The only usage hint lives in the schema (how to obtain the IDs), not in the description.

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