kb_get_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It reveals that short documents may have a single '全文' node and suggests kb_get_doc in that case, adding behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or return format details, though the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 compact and well-structured with labeled sections: purpose, usage, parameter source, and short-doc note. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter source, and an edge case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema provides only a bare 'doc_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating that doc_id comes from kb_search, giving clear provenance and meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb '返回' (return) and the resource '章节树' (chapter tree) with its contents (标题 + offset + section_id), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb_get_doc and kb_read_section by explicitly labeling it as the outline step.

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?

It provides an explicit '何时用' section specifying when to use (long SOPs needing chapter-wise reading or before kb_read_section) and gives an alternative for short documents (use kb_get_doc instead). It also notes that doc_id comes from kb_search and that section_id/offset are passed to kb_read_section.

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