get_report_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reduces the report definition to a compact outline, specifies the exact fields returned, and mentions possible error statuses (not_found, outline_failed). While it doesn't discuss side effects, auth, or performance, the read-only nature is implied and the return contract is clearly described.

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 moderately long but well-structured with a clear introductory sentence, a concise explanation of the outline format, bullet-pointed mappings, and a return summary. Every section adds value, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing essential information.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still gives a high-level summary. It covers purpose, usage, parameter context, and relationships to sibling tools comprehensively. For a single-parameter read tool, this is fully complete.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter report_id with 100% coverage. The description adds context about how the report structure is outlined but doesn't elaborate on report_id semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 reads a report's structure, specifically mapping pages to objects and providing handles for other tools. It differentiates itself by outlining what fields are included (name, label, type, text) and how they are used by other tools, making it distinct from siblings like get_report or describe_report_objects.

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?

Explicitly lists three use cases: editing existing reports, recovering object names after an apply, and checking batch output. It also provides concrete mappings to other tools (relativeToObject, container, updateObject, export_report), giving clear when-to-use and how-it-relates guidance.

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