entry_run

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains blocking behavior ('wait_ms만큼 기다린 뒤 결과를 돌려주며') and the optional payloads (screenshot, state, error/warning logs), but says nothing about side effects of stop/restart, whether unsaved state is lost, permissions, or timeouts.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by action list and return payload details. Little waste, though the parenthetical button hint is optional noise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return contents reasonably well, but leaves out failure modes, whether stop discards runtime state, and how restart differs from stop+start — gaps that matter for a control tool.

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 does: it maps all four parameters to meaning (action values with the 'start' button semantics, wait_ms as a delay before returning, screenshot as stage capture, state as variable/object snapshot). Edge semantics like legal wait_ms ranges and units are still absent.

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: '작품 실행 제어' (control project execution), and enumerates the three actions. It does not differentiate from siblings such as entry_launch, entry_status, or entry_runtime_state, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone why it should call entry_run rather than those.

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 action enum: 'start'(시작하기 버튼), 'stop', 'restart'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over entry_launch or entry_status, and no prerequisites such as requiring a loaded project.

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