file_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows line ranges for each symbol, includes both exported and non-exported symbols, and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention performance or authorization, but for a structural outline tool, these are not critical.

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 two sentences: the first specifies what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides usage advice. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous 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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context. It does not detail the exact response format, but the note about 'line ranges' gives sufficient expectation for an outline tool.

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 coverage is 100%, as both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reinforces that path is absolute and that exportedOnly controls showing exported symbols only. The phrase 'Shows both exported and non-exported symbols' clarifies default behavior but is already implied by the schema description. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a structural outline of a single file, listing symbols like functions, classes, interfaces, etc. with line ranges. It distinguishes itself from siblings: list_exports (which likely only shows exports), read_region (which reads a region), and find_references (which finds references). The verb 'Get' and resource 'structural outline of a single file' are specific.

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 suggests using this tool 'to understand file structure before reading a specific region,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives besides the implied sibling tools. This is a minor gap.

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