find_entry_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (finding uncalled functions) and the return structure (list with layer and summary), but it does not mention whether it's read-only, any side effects, or performance implications. Without annotations, this is a moderate level of transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then clear Args/Returns sections. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully explains what it returns. It doesn't define 'layer' or specify sorting/limits, but these are likely domain-specific and not critical for a basic query tool. It is complete enough for effective use.

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 coverage is 0% (no description in the schema property), but the description provides 'project: Project name' which clarifies the parameter's meaning. Since this is the only parameter and its purpose is straightforward, the semantic addition is minimal but sufficient.

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 'Find functions that are NOT called by any other function', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like trace_call_chain or find_impact by focusing on uncalled functions as potential 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 description implies when to use it (when seeking entry points) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks clear exclusionary or alternative guidance, so it earns a 3 for implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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