ast_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral transparency by stating it returns signatures with line ranges and no bodies. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, performance characteristics, or limitations (e.g., handling of large directories). The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and primary use case. No redundant words or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, earning its place fully.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential return behavior (signatures with line ranges) and primary use case. It omits details about return format, error handling, or behavior with invalid paths, but the param descriptions fill gaps partially. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description provides no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool gets a structural outline of files/directories, returns signatures with line ranges, and explicitly excludes bodies. It effectively distinguishes its purpose from siblings like ast_digest, ast_grep, ast_show by focusing on structure overview without full file content.

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 understanding code structure quickly ('without reading full files'), but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools. It lacks exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions, leaving usage context somewhat vague beyond the implied scenario.

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