outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely does so: it discloses the output shape (indented, source order, `:start-end` spans) and precisely what is excluded (locals, callbacks, object-literal keys) and how to include it. It omits error/edge behavior (non-JS/TS files, missing paths), but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Front-loaded with the framing question and a call example, followed by the functional explanation and follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical 'What's in this file?' plus example is slightly redundant framing rather than content.

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 2-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers inclusions, exclusions, the toggle, and next-step routing, which is essentially complete. The only gap is failure behavior for unsupported or missing files, which is minor given an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `detailed=true` is explained as 'include' the otherwise-excluded locals, callbacks and object-literal keys, and `file_path` is demonstrated via the `outline(file_path="src/app.ts")` example. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema, though format expectations for file_path are only implied.

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+resource: an indented outline of functions, classes and interfaces with `:start-end` line spans for a JS/TS file, in source order. This is clearly distinguished from siblings like hover, definition, references and symbol_info, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the reason to use it ('so you can navigate without reading it in full') and explicit routing to alternatives: 'Follow up with hover/definition/references at a listed line, or symbol_info by name.' It also names the condition that changes behavior (`detailed=true`). Nothing is left to inference.

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