Get Document Outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses low context cost, no body text return, and dynamic ingest progress reporting (status 'processing' with rising chunk_count). This is strong transparency beyond any structured metadata.

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?

Three sentences, each adding unique value: the return type, the usage context, and the progress-reporting behavior. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler words.

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?

Description covers output nature (headings, locators, chunk seq spans), a key limitation (no body text), and dynamic status reporting. Combined with output schema and sibling context, it gives an agent sufficient understanding to invoke correctly despite the max_depth omission.

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 documents document_id with 'Omit to list every ingested document with its status' but max_depth lacks description. Description reinforces document_id behavior but never explains max_depth or its effect on outline depth. With 50% schema coverage, this only partially compensates for the missing parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as returning a hierarchical heading tree with locators and chunk seq spans. It distinctively separates this from sibling get_chunk_context by stating it never returns body text and is for orientation before targeted content reads.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use to orient before get_chunk_context reads, call with no document_id to list the library, and avoid expecting body text. This tells when and how to invoke the tool, and implies when not to use it.

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