osnova_outline

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the 4096 code-unit selection budget and that omissions are exactly counted, which tells the agent output may be incomplete by design.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage instruction, and every clause carries information. The first sentence is dense and comma-embedded, which slightly slows parsing but wastes no 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does: definitions, signatures, line spans, and an omission count. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage on the single parameter, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the description 'Repo-relative file path'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 verb and resource ('Outline: the definitions of one file') plus the exact output shape (signature and line span, selection by connectivity, 4096 code-unit budget, count of omitted). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools that read, test, or warp code.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use instead of reading a whole file to learn its shape; read only the span you need afterwards,' which gives both a positive trigger and a follow-up workflow. It does not name which sibling implements the whole-file read, so the alternative is implied rather than routed.

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