Get Entry Points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval and says 'all' (suggesting no filtering or pagination), but it does not state whether the operation modifies state, what permissions are needed, how results are ordered or returned, or whether repeated calls are cheap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified for a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, but it avoids any bloat.

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 read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not clarify what counts as an entry point, how many may be returned, or how this differs from related listing tools, leaving some context gaps.

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 100%, with both optional parameters (timeout, instance_id) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (program entry points), so an agent knows it retrieves entry points rather than functions, exports, or imports. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling list-style tools such as list_exports or list_functions, which also enumerate program-level entities.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this should be called when entry-point information is needed and that no other tool covers the same ground.

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