repo.outline

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions using AST (Python) or lexical analysis, which gives insight into method. However, it does not disclose limitations (e.g., only Python for AST?) or performance implications. Lacks full disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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, 20 words, front-loaded. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 and no annotations, the description provides some context (return types, line ranges, parent context) but lacks format specification and usage guidance. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with these signals.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with description 'Repository-relative file path.' The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just implying the file is the target. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns declaration structure of a file, listing classes, functions, symbols with line ranges and parent context. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like repo.open_file (content) and repo.references (references).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repo.open_file or repo.references. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons are given.

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