view_files_outlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about batch extraction, enhanced Java/Spring parsing, and concurrency, but does not cover critical aspects like performance characteristics, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adequately describes the operation but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose and key features. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy (e.g., 'exploring global project structures' and 'building project maps' are similar). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch extraction with enhanced parsing), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and some behavioral insights, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or limitations. It's adequate but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'AbsolutePaths'. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but relies on the schema.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('batch extraction', 'fetch outlines') and resources ('file structural outlines', 'multiple files'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning its focus on exploring global project structures and enhanced Java/Spring parsing capabilities, unlike the more granular view_code_items or comprehensive view_files_full_context.

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 context for when to use this tool ('exploring global project structures', 'building project maps', 'tracing interface logic', 'large-scale code reviews') and implies it's for batch processing of multiple files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the general sibling tools, missing explicit exclusions.

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