Outline, map or zoom view

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important side effects: zoom 'renews ids' and leaves the global baseline untouched, which could affect subsequent interactions. It also specifies that outline returns structuredContent with a 'truncated' flag when trimmed. These details give the agent essential knowledge about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 dense but efficient, covering three view modes and their key behaviors in a compact format. Parenthetical clarifications keep related insights together without redundancy. Every sentence contributes either to what the tool does or when/how to use it, with no unnecessary 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?

The description adequately covers the three view modes and their parameter interactions, making it complete for the tool's complexity. It omits some details like output structures for map and zoom or error conditions, but those are not explicitly required given no output schema. The reference to 'digest' and escalation is contextually clear from sibling tools.

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 descriptions already cover all four parameters, meeting the baseline for 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how params like offset and id drive the map and zoom modes (e.g., 'pages actionables beyond the top', 'observes ONLY that subtree'). This enriches understanding beyond the schema, warranting a score above baseline.

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's purpose as providing expanded views (outline, map, zoom) when the digest is insufficient. It explicitly lists the three view modes and what each does, making the tool's function unambiguous. The 'Explicit escalation — digest first' note further clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 gives clear usage context: use when the digest is not enough, and explicitly notes escalation from digest. It also specifies parameter dependencies (zoom requires id, map takes optional offset), guiding the agent on when to use each mode. This provides sufficient direction for selecting this tool over simpler alternatives.

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