get_outline

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is behavioral detail it does supply: the exact failure mode 'Unknown doc_id returns {error:'doc_not_found', doc_id}'. It doesn't cover pagination or ordering of the tree, so it's not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return fields, then the error case — every sentence earns its place. The field enumeration is dense but justified since there is no output schema.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: it lists every OutlineNode field and their citation-role. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and an explicit error contract, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 100%, so both `doc_id` and the optional `vaults` filter are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance (e.g., when the vault filter matters). The mention of `chunk_ids` describes return data, not inputs, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Return the navigable section tree for a document,' which is distinguishable from siblings like search_sections, get_document_bundle, or read_note. It does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Consume `anchor` + `heading_path` as the section-level half of the citation packet' hints at a downstream citation workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many search/bundle siblings.

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