Entry points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so side-effect disclosure is not needed. The description adds value by naming the exact locations inspected (package.json, bin/, index/cli conventions, Python entry modules), but it does not describe the output shape or behavior when no entry points are detectable. This is a moderate gap, not a contradiction.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the action and enumerates the resource, the second provides usage context. No redundancy or fluff; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only detection tool, the description covers what it does, what it inspects, and when to use it. The lack of an output schema and return-format details is minor given the simple scope; an agent can call it to orient without needing additional prerequisites.

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 single parameter path is fully documented in the schema ('Absolute path to the repository root'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Detect where a repository actually starts executing' and then enumerates concrete targets (package.json bin/main/exports, bin/ scripts, index/cli conventions, Python entry modules). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like repo_map or file_outline, which concern mapping and outlining rather than startup entry points.

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 second sentence provides an explicit use case: 'Use it to orient before exploring or running a project.' It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough to route an agent toward this tool for initial orientation. No misleading guidance is present.

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