Generate a token-efficient AST skeleton outline of a code file to preserve structural context while minimizing token usage for analysis.
Generate token-efficient AST skeleton outline of a code file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| focus_symbol | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_token_outlineArguments"New value: +"rush_token_outlineArguments"Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_token_outlineOutput"New value: +"rush_token_outlineOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says an outline is generated, without explaining whether the operation is read-only, how focus_symbol affects output, supported file types, or any side effects or prerequisites.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the key action and object immediately, which makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly enough to make a basic call: it identifies the target resource and the required path parameter is obvious. However, the optional focus_symbol semantics and the meaning of 'token-efficient' are not explained, and no usage guidance is given relative to the many related siblings.
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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'path' is self-descriptive and the phrase 'code file' gives some context, 'focus_symbol' is left unexplained and its behavior must be inferred entirely from its name and default value.
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 uses a concrete verb ('Generate') and a precise object ('token-efficient AST skeleton outline') tied to a clear resource ('code file'). It also distinguishes the tool from the long list of siblings because no other listed tool claims to produce an AST skeleton outline.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over its many siblings. The only usage hint is implicit in the verb and noun phrase, and there are no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.