get_document_outline

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

The description discloses the behavior: walks the document body, returns headings up to a specified level. It is clear and straightforward. Although no annotations exist, the read-only nature is implied. No side effects or destructive actions are indicated.

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 concise, with a clear summary followed by structured Arg and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without 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 simple read tool, the description is complete: it states what it returns and the adjustable parameter. The presence of an output schema is indicated (but not shown) and the return format is described. Could optionally mention that it is non-destructive.

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 only parameter 'max_level' is fully explained: range 1-6, default 6, and its purpose (maximum heading level). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema which only provides a title and type.

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 clearly states the tool returns a flat list of headings as a document outline. It specifies the action (walk document body) and result (headings up to a level). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_headings' which might serve a similar purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_headings'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions where the tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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