get_document_outline

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

The description claims 'Read-only', but annotations set readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true, which is a direct contradiction. This severely undermines transparency and trust.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 outline extraction tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about return value (heading structure) and detection capabilities. However, the contradiction with annotations reduces completeness and introduces confusion.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'filename' parameter. The tool description adds details about detected heading styles but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself, so a 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 extracts heading structure and table of contents. It uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('heading structure'), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_document_metadata or read_document.

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 'Use this to understand document organization before reading specific sections', providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

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