get_document_outline

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the tool returns only the section hierarchy without content. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, performance characteristics, or output format. Given that annotations already signal safety, the description provides sufficient additional context for the agent.

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 concise sentence of 11 words that conveys the essential purpose without any superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of the domain (many siblings related to document structure) and the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the output format (e.g., nested hierarchy or flat list) or by noting that it returns IDs or headings. Currently it leaves the agent to guess the exact structure.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (repo and doc_path) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'section hierarchy', and the scope 'single document file'. It explicitly distinguishes that it returns only the hierarchy without content, which differentiates it from siblings like get_section (which likely returns content) or get_toc (which may be a flat list).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_toc, get_sections, or get_section. No explicit usage context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the description.

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