get_report_outline

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline is low. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reduces the stored report to a compact outline, mentions possible return statuses (ok, not_found, outline_failed), and explains the output structure. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 several sentences long but well-structured with a clear primary purpose, usage examples, and return format. Each bullet adds specific value (mapping to other tools). It is slightly longer than necessary but avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, idempotent), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, what the output contains, how to use it with other tools, and error conditions. The output schema is not shown but the description explicitly mentions the return structure and statuses, so no critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter report_id, and the schema description states 'The report id to outline.' The description does not add further detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since the parameter is simple and unambiguous, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool reads a report's structure (pages → objects) and provides the handles needed by other tools. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_report (full report) and describe_report_objects, and explains the compact outline nature.

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 explicit use cases: to edit an existing report, recover object names after an apply, or check batch results. It also maps the returned fields to specific parameters of other tools (e.g., object name → relativeToObject, label → export_report's report_objects, page label → page placement), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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