file_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 discloses the surprising behaviors: bodies are elided, 'names' mode returns only names/lines/counts, and data-file output avoids returning collection contents while supplying `children_count` and `uniformity` with all three possible values defined. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and what happens on unparseable files.

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?

Roughly 100 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then mode semantics. The uniformity/children_count explanation is dense but earns its place since it describes non-obvious output; there is no 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers mode and data-file behavior well, but the general return structure for code files stays vague ('definitions, key paths or headings') and three parameter semantics are undocumented. An agent would still have to guess at max_tokens truncation and max_depth behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for `mode` ('full' default, 'names' for enumerating definitions). But `max_depth`, `max_tokens`, and `include_docstrings` are entirely unexplained, which matters because `max_tokens` affects truncation and `include_docstrings` interacts with the elision behavior. Only partial compensation.

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 and resource — 'Outline one file' — and spells out the output shape: 'definitions, key paths or headings, bodies elided.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_symbol or search_symbols even without naming them, and the contrast with reading a file sharpens what the tool is for.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: 'Use this instead of reading a file to find out what is in it.' That is clear, actionable context. It stops short of a 5 because it never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., when full bodies or docstrings are actually needed).

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