entry_runtime_state

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; "조회" implies a non-mutating read, but that is inference rather than declaration. It does usefully disclose the breadth of data surfaced (all variables/lists, all objects, clone counts), which hints at a potentially large payload. It says nothing about whether the project must be running, whether the call has side effects, or how heavy the response will be.

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 front-loaded clause states the action, followed by a dense enumeration of returned fields with zero filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the compact colon-delimited structure is easy to scan.

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 output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does list the returned categories — which is the right instinct. However, it omits the shape of that data (field names, nesting, units) and any precondition such as the project being in a running state, which matters a great deal for a runtime-state snapshot 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema is trivially complete. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter meaning could be added.

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 verb and resource ("실행 상태 조회" = query runtime state) and then enumerates exactly which state fields are returned: engine status, all variable/list values, per-object position/size/direction/shape/speech-bubble/clone count, and answer value. That is far more concrete than a name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as entry_status or entry_scene, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions (e.g. that the project must first be launched via entry_launch), and no reference to any alternative sibling. Usage is only weakly implied by the word "조회" (inquiry/read). An agent cannot tell from this text whether to reach for entry_runtime_state or entry_status.

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