get_file_outline

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It hints at a read-only, non-source-reading operation, but says nothing about the outline's granularity, language/file-type support, behavior on unparseable or binary files, or error cases.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint is placed where the agent will see it. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotations or output schema, but that gap is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an outline-shaped return value, the description should at minimum describe what an 'outline' contains (symbols, nesting, line ranges). It leaves the agent unable to predict the response at all, which is a significant gap for a tool whose entire value is its output shape.

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 coverage is 100%, with both filePath and workspacePath fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about path resolution or how workspacePath interacts with an absolute filePath.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Extract') with a specific resource ('file structural outline') and adds the distinguishing constraint 'without reading source text', which separates it from snippet-reading siblings such as fetch_code_snippets. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'without reading source text' implies the intended scenario (getting structure cheaply rather than pulling file contents), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative when a full read or symbol lookup is needed.

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