get_entrypoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, error handling for invalid project types (though schema enforces enum), or return format. The description is minimally transparent.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks details about the return type or format of the instructions. Mentioning that it returns a string or steps would improve completeness. The mention of 'Step 8' provides some context but could be expanded.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter. The description adds listing the enum values again, but does not provide deeper meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, expected use). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'entrypoint-specific instructions (Step 8)', and specifies the scope 'for a given project type'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_step by naming the specific step, but could be more explicit about how it differs from get_step or get_master_prompt.

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 (need step 8 instructions for a project type) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives (e.g., get_step, list_steps) might be more appropriate. No explicit when-to-use or when-to-avoid context.

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