get_file_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned (signatures and summaries), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details. The description provides basic output information but misses critical operational context.

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, well-constructed sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes essential details about the output format. Every element earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output information but lacks sufficient operational context. It doesn't explain what format the symbols are returned in, how errors are handled, or any limitations of the tool. While concise, it leaves important gaps for a tool that presumably returns complex symbol data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (repo and file_path). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for repo beyond 'owner/repo' or edge cases for file_path. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get all symbols'), resource ('in a file'), and scope ('with signatures and summaries'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_tree (file structure) or get_symbol (single symbol). It uses precise terminology that helps the agent understand exactly what this tool does.

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 implies usage for extracting symbol information from a specific file, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_symbol (single symbol) or search_symbols (search across files). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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