entry_get_project

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the conditional payload shape (code included only when scripts is set, and in compact form for 'blocks'), which is useful context an agent would not otherwise know. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor warn about payload size when scripts is enabled, nor mention permissions.

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 returned structure is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the scripts conditional, so an agent reading the opening line learns the essentials. It is dense but nearly every clause names a concrete returned field; only the field enumeration could be trimmed.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does substantial work by describing the return shape in detail, which is exactly what is needed here. It falls short on the object filter, on read-only/side-effect disclosure, and on how this differs from neighboring project/script/scene tools.

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 50%: the scripts enum is undocumented in the schema, and the description fully compensates by explaining all three values and their effect on the response. Conversely, the object parameter (narrowing to a single object by name or id) is never mentioned in the description, so the description adds nothing there and the agent may miss the filtering capability.

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 names a specific resource ('현재 작품의 상세 구조') and enumerates exactly what that structure contains: per-scene objects with id, name, coordinates, size, direction, shape/sound lists, layer, plus variables/lists/signals/functions. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as entry_project, entry_scene, or entry_get_script, so the agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied through the conditional scripts behavior ('blocks' → compact block JSON, 'python' → Entry Python), which tells the agent how to get code in this call. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over entry_get_script or entry_scene, and no when-not guidance. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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