Read outline state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered; 'Read-only, no undo step' is largely redundant. The real added value is the disclosed failure mode (call fails in views other than the visible resource/capacity view) and the error-routing to rillsoft_view_state_apply, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the long colon-delimited run-on enumerating outline/openRows/levels/canExpand/canCollapse restates what the output schema already documents, so several clauses do not earn their place. The key operational fact (failure in other views) is buried at the end.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and no parameters, the description only needs to frame the tool and its constraints. It does so, adding the view-scoped failure behavior and the correct fallback sibling, so it is essentially complete aside from not routing to outline_apply.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by naming the returned fields, but that duplicates the output schema rather than clarifying any input semantics.

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 ('Reads how far the visible resource or capacity view is expanded') and enumerates the exact output fields (outline, openRows[], levels[], canExpand, canCollapse). This is clearly a read of outline state, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest siblings (rillsoft_outline_apply / rillsoft_outline_row_apply), leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not condition: in any other view the call fails and routes the agent to rillsoft_view_state_apply. That names an alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not, however, spell out the read-vs-apply workflow with outline_apply, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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