python_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (returns an outline), the output format options, path constraints, and that it does not read file contents in detail. However, it does not describe error behavior for invalid paths, though it states paths must exist.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Agent usage guidelines, Path requirements, Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value, including examples and constraints. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, path prerequisites, and return format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, and the description covers all other aspects adequately.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully. It explains both parameters: 'paths' as a list of absolute paths, and 'output_format' with allowed values ('json' or 'markdown') and default behavior. It even provides example paths for Windows and Linux.

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 states 'Returns an outline for each Python file: imports, classes, functions, docstrings' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like dir_tree by focusing on Python file structure rather than directory trees.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool when you need to understand the structure of Python code files' and 'Do not use for non-Python files or for reading file contents in detail.' Path requirements and examples are also given, fully explaining when and how to use the tool.

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