aya_codigo_outline

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the tool avoids loading the entire file into context, which has resource/performance implications. The statement that it does not replace LSP also sets appropriate expectations about scope. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Every phrase adds value: 'outline leve', 'sem carregar o arquivo inteiro no contexto', and 'Nao substitui LSP' all convey distinct and useful information.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and an important limitation. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the outline contains or which file types are supported, an agent still faces ambiguity about the exact return value and applicability.

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% and the description does not explain the 'caminho' parameter at all. The word 'arquivo' hints that it refers to a source file path, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema semantics, leaving the agent to infer the expected path type or format.

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 specific action ('extrai outline leve de simbolos') and the resource (symbols in a file), and it adds the meaningful constraint of not loading the full file into context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling code tools such as aya_codigo_referencias or aya_codigo_editar_linhas, aside from an external LSP comparison.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a lightweight symbol outline is needed without pulling the entire file into context. It explicitly notes that it does not replace LSP, which is a useful exclusion, but it does not name any sibling tool as an alternative or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond the LSP caveat.

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