Generate an outline of a repo file's imports and function signatures with line ranges, excluding bodies, to inspect structure before reading the full file.
File outline: imports + every signature with line ranges, no bodies. Use before reading a file in full.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Repo-relative file path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output shape (imports + signatures with line ranges, no bodies), which is valuable since no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about failure modes (missing/unreadable files), large-file behavior, or permissions, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Two tight sentences: the output contract is front-loaded, and the usage cue follows. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool, the description covers what matters most: what the outline contains and when to invoke it. The absence of output schema makes the enumerated return content especially useful; only edge-case behavior is unaddressed.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema coverage already documented as 'Repo-relative file path.' The description adds nothing about the path parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific resource (file outline) and precisely enumerates its contents: imports plus every signature with line ranges, explicitly excluding bodies. This distinguishes it from symbol-level tools like read_symbol, though it never names a sibling directly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
Gives clear context: 'Use before reading a file in full,' which establishes this as a cheap reconnaissance step preceding a token-expensive full read. It provides the when without naming alternatives or stating exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.