plan_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the response contains (section tree, word counts, build-volume heuristic, scope ledger), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, failure behavior when the run/file is missing, or any size 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core output (section tree) leads and the extras (word counts, heuristic, ledger) follow. It is dense with domain jargon, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned content is doing real work. However, the 'run' parameter is undocumented and no error or edge-case behavior is described, leaving modest gaps for a tool whose whole purpose is returning structured analysis.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'file' parameter is documented in the schema while 'run' is not. The description compensates partially by framing a run's deliverable and a markdown file as alternative targets, clarifying the two-parameter relationship, but it adds no format or constraint details beyond that.

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 names a concrete resource and output: a section tree of a run's deliverable or any markdown file, enriched with word counts, the build-volume heuristic, and the scope ledger. An agent can tell what it will get back, though the phrasing is noun-heavy with no explicit verb and does not distinguish it from siblings like read_run_file or run_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_run_file, run_status, or list_runs. The parenthetical '(or any markdown file)' hints that the file parameter is an alternative target, but no selection criteria or exclusions are given.

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