entry_guide

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 discloses that the tool returns reference documentation covering four named topics and that a single read suffices before work, which is decent context. It says nothing about response size, language, or whether content is static versus project-dependent.

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?

Two sentences total: the first enumerates coverage, the second gives the call timing. The content list is front-loaded and nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, zero-annotation documentation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is inside and when to read it. A note on roughly how large the content is, or whether it overlaps entry_block_reference, would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with a pure documentation fetch.

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?

It uses a specific noun ('엔트리 MCP 사용 설명서', the Entry MCP user guide) and lists its coverage areas: coordinate system, block JSON format, Entry Python syntax, and quality tips. This lets an agent tell it apart from most siblings. However, it does not distinguish itself from the plausible near-neighbor entry_block_reference, which also concerns blocks.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: '작업 시작 전에 한 번 읽으세요' (read once before starting work), which also hints that one read is enough and needn't be repeated. There are no exclusions and no pointer to a sibling for narrower lookups, so it is clear but not complete.

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