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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only, cheap operation and mentions line numbers, but it does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, or how the outline is computed. This is helpful but incomplete.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are structurally covered. The description supplies the essential orientation: what the tool maps, that it is cheap, and when to use it. It would benefit from clarifying the 'project' parameter and supported file types, but overall it is reasonably complete for a simple overview 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the 'path' or 'project' parameters. 'Path' is inferable from the tool's purpose, but 'project' remains entirely opaque, so the description provides little parameter-level value beyond the schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('a document's structure'), and enumerates what is included: sections, figures, labels, includes. It also differentiates from sibling tools like read by emphasizing line numbers and the low cost compared to reading the whole file.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use before reading') and frames it as a cheap precursor to reading the full file. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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