outline_file

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (LINE_NUMBER:LINE_CONTENT, 1-indexed) and the specific selection criteria for lines. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, but as a read-only tool, that's acceptable.

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 and well-structured. First sentence states purpose, then lists what is shown, then output format, then use case. No extraneous information.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the output comprehensively. It explains selection criteria and format. It does not mention limitations or error handling, but it's still fairly complete for its complexity.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'filePath' parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or constraints (e.g., expected format, restrictions) beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 returns a high-level outline of a file, similar to VS Code's folded view. It specifies what structural lines are included (class/def, separator comments). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools (indent_dedent, move_string_in_file, rename_symbol).

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 says it's 'useful for understanding the structure of a large file before reading it in full,' which implies when to use. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough that an AI agent can infer appropriate usage contexts.

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