filing_outline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It does add scope ('only' headings and sizes) and the selection use case, but it does not disclose behavior around the `refresh` flag, caching, failure modes, or the meaning of 'sizes'. This is a minimal but non-contradictory addition.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. It is appropriately short for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The description lacks context about when this is preferable to sibling tools, what `limit` and `refresh` do, and any caveats. Though an output schema exists, the absence of usage guidance and parameter explanation makes it incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain `filing_id` (though obvious), `limit`, or `refresh`. The phrase 'headings and sizes' relates to output, not input parameters. No parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema's names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('headings and sizes') with a clear scope constraint ('only'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like filing_read or filing_markdown by signaling that this is a structural outline, not full content.

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 phrase 'allowing targeted section selection' implies the use case, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No exclusionary guidance is given relative to sibling tools like filing_sections or filing_read.

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