lc_outlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns excerpted content highlighting important sections,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. The description lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or performance characteristics, leaving significant gaps.

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 relatively concise with two sentences and a parameter list, but it's not optimally structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the parameter list includes undocumented items that conflict with the schema, adding noise. While it avoids excessive verbosity, the inconsistency reduces its effectiveness.

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 complexity (involving file processing and rule-based selection) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'excerpted content' or 'important sections' mean, what file types are supported, or how rules are applied. The parameter discrepancy further undermines completeness. Although the output schema might cover return values, the description lacks essential context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 description lists three parameters (root_path, rule_name, timestamp), but the input schema only documents one parameter (root_path) with 0% schema description coverage. This creates a contradiction and leaves two parameters (rule_name, timestamp) entirely undocumented in both the schema and description. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema and doesn't compensate for the low coverage, resulting in confusion about parameter validity.

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's purpose: 'Returns excerpted content highlighting important sections in all supported files.' It specifies the verb ('Returns excerpted content') and resource ('all supported files'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on content highlighting rather than change detection, missing files, or rule instructions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text itself, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (lc_changed, lc_missing, lc_rule_instructions). It lists parameters but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for invoking the tool, such as what types of files are supported or when excerpting is appropriate. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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