Outline a file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about performance ('Cheaper than reading the whole file') and the line-number output, but it omits behavioral details such as LSP dependency and timeout semantics. This is moderate additional transparency beyond annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose or benefit.

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 simple read-only outline tool, the description adequately conveys the output (symbols and line numbers) and a practical use case. It could mention the LSP dependency or contrast with nvim_workspace_symbols, but the absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit symbol list. Slightly more detail would make it complete, but it is already quite informative.

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%, with both 'path' and 'wait_ms' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a well-defined resource ('symbol outline of a file') and enumerates symbol types (classes, functions, fields) plus line numbers. This clearly distinguishes it from nvim_workspace_symbols by confining scope to a single file.

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 'Cheaper than reading the whole file' provides clear context for when to use this tool as a lightweight alternative to full-file reads. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like nvim_workspace_symbols or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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