cos_graph_entrypoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by mentioning 'scored' and the entry point categories, but it does not explain how scoring works, if any sorting is applied, or how pagination/limits behave.

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 with no padding, which is concise. However, the trailing '— TASK-081.' is irrelevant for tool invocation and adds noise. The structure is minimal but not optimally informative.

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 tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema, and many graph-related siblings, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how parameters affect results, what 'scored' means, or how this tool differs from alternatives, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate.

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 0% and the description provides no information about the four parameters (top, kind, diversify, min_score). It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the AI agent to infer meanings solely from parameter names.

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 identifies the resource as 'entry points' and the action as returning 'Top-N scored' items, which clearly indicates a ranked list retrieval. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like cos_graph_ranking by focusing on entry point types (main/cli/http/cron/test), though an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' is absent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cos_graph_ranking, cos_graph_search, or cos_graph_query. The description provides no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, offering only a bare statement of what it returns.

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