fgis_document_outline

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

Annotations already establish read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: offset/next_block_offset paginate blocks rather than text characters, and the result is raw source structure. This is valuable beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe result ordering or empty-result behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core list, followed by pagination caveat and a routing note. Every sentence earns its place; no 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the content, the pagination model, and the relationship to fgis_read_document_table. The main gap is the unexplained optional parameters, but those are likely shared patterns in the fgis family.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and five parameters, the description must compensate but only explains the offset/next_block_offset semantic. It does not explain source, document_guid, expected_sha256, or the limit parameter's role, leaving substantial ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List document paragraphs, explicit HTML headings and tables with text offsets and previews.' It then distinguishes itself from an 'inferred official table of contents,' which separates it from any sibling that might provide a high-level TOC.

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?

It gives usable context: this is source structure, not an inferred official table of contents, and table indices feed fgis_read_document_table. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for the inferred-TOC case, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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