entry_get_script

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that this is a read operation and what each format yields (compact JSON vs Entry Python vs raw Entry JSON). It does not state the default format when omitted, what happens for a nonexistent object, or roughly how large 'raw' output may be. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single compact line with the core action front-loaded and the format variants enumerated in a scannable pipe list. Nothing is wasted, though the density and mixed Korean/English identifiers make it slightly cryptic on first read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-value meaning; it partially meets that by describing the three payload shapes. But the required 'object' input and default behavior are undocumented, leaving real gaps for a tool an agent must call correctly on the first try.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does: it explains the semantics of all three 'format' enum values rather than just repeating the names. However the required 'object' parameter receives no explanation at all — no hint whether it is an ID, a name, or a path. Half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('오브젝트 코드 읽기' / read object code), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling entry_set_script that writes. It also names the three output representations, so an agent knows the shape of what it gets back. It stops short of saying which object identifier is expected, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but the parenthetical that 'blocks' output 'can be put directly into entry_set_script' implies the read-then-write workflow this tool participates in. Choosing a format is left entirely to the caller with no guidance on which to pick for which task. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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