outline

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing notes, or any limits on heading depth. The minimal description does not convey essential behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise (4 words), which improves readability but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks sufficient context for a tool with five parameters.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return formats, the meaning of 'total', or how to specify a note. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 description adds no parameter-level information. Schema coverage is only 20% (vault parameter has a brief description), and the description does not explain 'format', 'total', or how 'file' and 'path' interact. This leaves agents with insufficient meaning to set parameters correctly.

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 'Return note headings / outline' indicates the tool returns headings or an outline of a note. However, it does not clarify how the note is identified (e.g., by file or path). While the general function is clear, it lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like 'file' or 'read' that also retrieve note content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'file', 'read', or 'search'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for optimal use.

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