outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the scope (JS/TS files only), ordering (source order), and exactly what is excluded (locals, callbacks, object-literal keys) unless detailed=true. It does not mention error handling for non-JS/TS or missing files, and read-only status is only implied.

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-loads purpose with a question, then the definition, exclusions, flag, and follow-up path, in that order. The inline example earns its place by showing exact call syntax; phrasing is dense but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description accurately describes the return shape (indented outline with :start-end spans) and the effect of detailed on that output. Combined with explicit follow-up tools, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 description coverage is 0% for 2 params, so the description must compensate. It explains detailed=true and its concrete effect, and the inline example demonstrates file_path usage; file_path's own semantics (path to the file to outline) are conveyed only implicitly.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: an indented outline (functions, classes, interfaces with line spans) of a JS/TS file. It distinguishes itself from siblings like symbol_info and search_symbol by describing a whole-file structural view rather than a named-symbol lookup.

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 clear context for use ('so you can navigate without reading it in full') and routes to follow-ups (hover/definition/references at a listed line, or symbol_info by name). It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use case, but the alternative-tool routing is concrete.

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