Codebase outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists each file's imports and top-level symbols with line numbers, and implies a read-only operation by focusing on structure rather than modification. It also hints at efficiency ('without reading every file'), which adds useful context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences long, each serving a purpose: defining the output, stating the use case, and explaining how to focus the tool. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description plus schema cover all necessary aspects. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the output contains (imports, symbols, line numbers). The parameter descriptions in the schema handle the rest, making the overall context complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of extra guidance by explaining that `path` can focus on a file or directory prefix, but it does not elaborate on `limit` or `project` beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool's function: a structural map of a codebase, subtree, or single file, listing imports and top-level symbols with line numbers. It uses specific language that conveys the exact output, distinguishing it from generic 'outline' tools and sibling tools like search or index.

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 clear guidance: 'Use it to grasp how a project is organised without reading every file.' It also tells the user to provide a path to focus on a specific file or directory prefix. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search or index, which would elevate it to a 5.

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