get_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return structure (flat entries plus nested tree), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the path is invalid, or whether there are any side effects. The name 'get' implies non-mutating, but this is not stated.

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 succinct and front-loaded. The main purpose is stated in the first line, and the additional detail about the return format and usage is directly relevant. No extraneous words.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description falls short in explaining parameter semantics and error behavior. However, the presence of an output schema likely covers return format, and the tool's simplicity (read-only outline retrieval) reduces the need for extensive context. Still, the missing parameter explanation makes it incomplete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'path' or 'doc_hash' at all. The agent must guess that 'path' identifies the document and that 'doc_hash' is possibly a version hash. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('heading outline of a document'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like read_document (full content), find_text (search), or get_comments (comments). No ambiguity exists about what this tool does.

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 a concrete use case ('Use heading ids to read sections or anchor edits') which helps an agent understand when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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