entry_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. While it describes what the tool returns (entry point, call path), it doesn't disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral traits are only partially specified.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return type (entry point, call path) and usage context. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior when no entry point is found, which would be helpful for completeness.

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 50% (only 'k' has a description). The tool description mentions 'feature' but does not elaborate on the 'query' parameter's format or expected input. It adds marginal value beyond the schema, but does not fully compensate for the missing description of 'query'.

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 defines the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('entry/boundary that dominates the feature'). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'locate' by specifying that 'entry_point' is for understanding where a feature begins, while 'locate' is for finding where a symbol is defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('where do I start to understand X') and when not to use it ('for 'where is symbol X defined' use locate'), providing clear guidance for the AI agent.

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