extract_document_outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations — the three heuristic rules and that results include original line numbers as evidence. This adds value without contradicting annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line with the three heuristics following compactly. The Args/Returns block partly duplicates the schema and output summary, but the line-number-evidence detail is genuinely additive. Reasonably sized with minimal waste.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema (OutlineResponse with level, title, line), the description covers the essential behavior and return semantics. It explains what heuristics produce candidates and that line numbers serve as evidence. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though it could briefly note what disqualifies a line from being an outline candidate.

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 100%, with relative_path already described as '문서 상대 경로' in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter explanation verbatim, adding no new meaning about format, constraints, or interpretation beyond the schema. At full coverage, the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (extract), resource (document outline), and the three heuristic strategies (markdown headings, numbered items, all-caps lines). The intent is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like extract_key_terms or scan_folder_structure. Slight deduction for not explicitly positioning itself against those 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?

Implies usage for unstructured documents with inconsistent formatting ('비정형 문서는 형식이 제각각이므로'), which gives context on when it applies. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternative tools (e.g., scan_folder_structure for structural scans). Usage context is present but no exclusions.

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