find_entrypoints

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Find', implying a read-only operation. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the optional area affects results, or any error behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the purpose.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no redundant words, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it highly concise.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents parameters, the description is adequate for a simple lookup tool. It could benefit from a brief usage note, but the schema fills in the gaps, making the description reasonably complete.

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% parameter description coverage, including the instruction that 'repo' comes from list_repositories() and that 'area' can be left empty to list all areas. The tool description merely repeats the optional area concept with the same examples, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific action ('Find') and resource ('code entrypoints'), scoped by 'repo' and optional 'area'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_code and list_repositories, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage guidelines are provided in the description. It does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_code, nor does it mention prerequisites like retrieving the repo name from list_repositories(). The only usage hint appears in the schema parameter description, not in the main description.

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