Outline a file

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'it holds no table of languages and never reads the suffix', 'Lines come from the file byte for byte', and the comparison with `peek`. These go beyond the annotations and clarify the tool's universal applicability and reading behavior, though it does not mention auth or side effects, which are not needed for a read-only tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first explains what it returns, the second clarifies its universal applicability and relationship to `run`, and the third gives a behavioral detail about reading and contrasts with `peek`. There is no wasted text; it is efficient and information-dense.

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?

While the purpose and behavior are thoroughly explained, the description lacks any guidance on the two optional parameters (`keep` and `budget`). Since the schema provides no descriptions for them, an agent cannot know what values to pass or how they affect the output. The output schema exists, but the description should still give enough context for correct invocation, which it does not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It does not explain `keep` or `budget` at all, and only implies `path` by context. The description focuses on the tool's behavior but leaves the optional parameters unexplained, which is a significant gap for an agent trying to call the tool with appropriate arguments.

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's function: 'Return what a file declares -- its types, functions, exports, targets and settings -- without their bodies.' It also clearly distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it is the machine behind `run` asked a different question and contrasts with `peek`, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it works on any language or file type, including those without extensions or unknown to the system, and it contrasts with `peek` for full content. It implies the tool is for structural summaries rather than full reads, but it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name the exact alternative for each scenario. However, the contrast with `run` and `peek` gives strong guidance.

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