Get document outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: it recursively follows \input/\include from the main file and reports file and line numbers, which tells the agent the result spans multiple files. Read-only intent is strongly implied by "Show" but not stated, and nothing is said about permissions or limits.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and appends the two details that actually matter (include traversal, file/line numbers). No filler and nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (section hierarchy with file and line numbers) and how it resolves multi-file documents. Minor gaps remain about the exact return shape and whether the operation is guaranteed read-only.

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%, so both parameters (project, main_file) are already fully documented, including the OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID default and auto-detection of main_file. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Show the section structure") and pins down the exact artifact it reflects (\part, \chapter, \section), so the agent knows this is a structural overview rather than a content read. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like read_section or read_file, but the distinct output (structure + locations) makes the separation inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the inclusion of file and line numbers suggests it is meant as a navigation/orientation step before reading content, but the description never says when to prefer it over read_file or read_section, nor states any exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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