outline_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and describes exactly what data is returned (headings, offsets, anchors, frontmatter keys). It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but as a read-only operation the description is adequate.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the tool's function, second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (heading tree, offsets, anchors, frontmatter key list) and why to use it (cost savings). It does not detail the exact JSON structure, but for an outline tool this is sufficient given the context signals and sibling set.

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% (all parameters described in schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it references block-reference anchors and sizes in the output but does not clarify parameter details or defaults beyond what schema provides.

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 it returns a note's structure—heading tree with offsets, block-reference anchors, and frontmatter key list—and explicitly excludes prose. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like read_note.

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 advises using the tool before section reads or patches to discover sections at lower cost, implying when to use and contrasting with 'reading the full note'. No alternative sibling is explicitly named, but the guidance is clear.

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