outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns signatures with line ranges and excludes bodies. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or performance implications. Acceptable but minimal.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get a structural outline of a file or directory') followed by a brief behavioral note. No wasted words; every part is informative.

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, the description explains the return format (signatures with line ranges, no bodies). For a tool with 6 boolean filters, it provides a clear output concept. Lacks details like whether the outline is flat or nested, but sufficient for typical use.

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 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond restating 'no bodies' in the output context. 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 clearly states the tool gets a 'structural outline' (verb+resource) and specifies it returns 'signatures with line ranges (no bodies)'. This is distinct from siblings like 'grep' (search), 'show' (display content), and 'digest' (summary).

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 vs alternatives like 'digest', 'grep', or 'show'. The description does not mention when to prefer outline over other tools or what prerequisites exist.

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