get_document_outline

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

Only behavioral disclosure is 'without content.' With no annotations, the description should convey more behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, performance, error conditions). Lacks essential details about what the output represents or side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and object. Efficient but slightly underspecified given the number of sibling tools; could add a phrase to clarify scope without harming conciseness.

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, and description does not explain return format, hierarchy structure, or behavior on missing documents. For a retrieval tool, these details are critical for agent decision-making.

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 covers both parameters (repo, doc_path) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, achieving baseline score for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the section hierarchy of a single document, explicitly noting it does not include content. This distinguishes it from content retrieval tools, though it doesn't differentiate from similar structural tools like get_toc_tree or get_section_descendants among siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer it over get_toc or get_sections, or when not to use it.

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