outline_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns only structural data (headings, offsets, anchors, frontmatter keys) and explicitly excludes prose. It also signals a performance advantage ('fraction of the cost'), which is not in the annotations. No contradiction.

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 with zero wasted words. The most critical information (what it returns and what it excludes) is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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?

The description fully covers the return value (heading tree, offsets, anchors, frontmatter keys), the exclusions (no prose), and the usage context (before reads/patches). With only 3 well-documented parameters and read-only annotations, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra semantics to the parameters beyond what the schema already states, but it does clarify the overall output context (e.g., 'frontmatter key list' implies what includeFrontmatter might do). No compensation needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') with a precise resource ('a note's structure') and enumerates the components (heading tree, offsets, block-reference anchors, frontmatter key list). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_note by explicitly saying 'without returning any prose,' so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before section reads or patches to discover what sections exist at a fraction of the cost of reading the full note.' This tells the agent the ideal scenario and why it's preferable to full reads, effectively excluding alternatives like read_note.

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