query_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: exact AND-combination, stable ID order, no ranking, that empty results are valid, and that superseded/deprecated entries are included unless filtered. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's core purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits without any extraneous text.

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 the large number of parameters (16) and no output schema, the description provides high-level context and behavioral notes but does not explain the return format or pagination. However, it is sufficiently complete for a query tool with well-documented parameters.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about individual parameters beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the minimum expectation.

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 it is a structured field filter using exact AND-combined predicates, explicitly distinguishing it from relevance search. It specifies the behavior regarding stable ID order and no ranking, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use when you know the field values (e.g. absolute constraints scoped to 'hooks/').' It implies when not to use (not for free-form search) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_context or get_project_summary.

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