get_note_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, without disclosing whether it is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the file has no headings. The description is insufficient for transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structural elements like separate sections for usage or parameters, which would improve readability without increasing length.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter with no description, the tool description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the format of the returned outline, error handling, or edge cases. The agent lacks critical information to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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%, meaning the parameter 'path' lacks any schema documentation. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter name, failing to explain what format the path should be (relative/absolute) or whether it refers to a file or directory. The description adds minimal value over the structured schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get the heading outline of a vault file'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_vault_file or get_outgoing_links, which could also involve file content. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, suitable contexts, or when not to use it. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over siblings.

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