get_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 describes the core functionality (returning outline with token counts) but does not go into return format, pagination, error behavior, or side effects. This is minimal but sufficient for a read-only-style tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second gives typical use cases.

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 relatively simple tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear high-level picture. However, it does not describe the returned structure in any detail or mention the behavior when no parameters are provided. Since schema covers parameters, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain the interaction between path and sectionId, but the schema already states that path is required if sectionId is not given. Thus no extra value is provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: '文書の目次構造をトークン数付きで一覧表示します' (lists the document's outline structure with token counts). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from siblings like get_document and search, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides clear use cases: '文書の全体像把握や記述量バランスの確認に使えます' (can be used for grasping the overall picture and checking the balance of writing amount). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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