outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output shape (indented outline with line numbers) and the intended navigation workflow. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, how a missing/non-Python file is handled, or whether very large files are truncated, leaving real behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core question ('What's in this file?') followed by a usage example, then the definition and next-step guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the rhetorical opening question is slightly less efficient than a direct statement.

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, single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, output form, and follow-up workflow adequately, so return values need not be explained further. Only the error/edge-case behavior is missing, which is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 single file_path parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description does provide value via the concrete example 'outline(file_path="src/app/services.py")', which implies a workspace-relative path string. It does not explicitly state relative vs absolute path expectations or whether directories are accepted, so the compensation is partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Indented outline ... of a Python file') and precisely names the returned artifact (classes, methods, functions with line numbers). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning hover/definition/references and symbol_info as follow-ups rather than substitutes, so an agent can tell it apart from those tools.

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?

It gives clear context for use ('so you can navigate a large file without reading it in full') and routes the agent to concrete alternatives for the next step ('follow up with hover/definition/references at a listed line, or symbol_info by name'). It stops short of an explicit when-not clause (e.g., don't use to search by name across a project), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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