node_entry_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it requires a loaded project, or any side effects. The list of entry-point types gives some insight into detection logic, but behavioral details are absent.

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, fitting in a single short phrase without filler. It is front-loaded with the key term 'Project entry points' and lists specific examples, making it easy to scan. However, it is under-specified, lacking a verb.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain return values, usage prerequisites (e.g., project must be loaded), or how the entry points are presented. There is no output schema, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 for the single 'name' parameter is 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's focus: project entry points, explicitly enumerating package.json scripts, main, listen(), and shebang. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_functions or program_summary, though it omits an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'finds'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context from the name and sibling list.

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