entry_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the categories of information returned — acting in place of the missing output schema. The verb 'view' implies a side-effect-free read. It does not state whether the snapshot is live or cached, nor whether it fails when no project/connection exists, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 sentence with no filler; connection status and path come before the longer parenthetical list. The enumeration is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists to convey return contents.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the agent needs to know about what comes back. The main gap is the absence of any routing hint versus the overlapping entry_get_project and entry_runtime_state siblings.

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 baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object and there is nothing further the description could usefully add about inputs.

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 gives a specific verb ('봅니다' / view) and enumerates the resource: connection status, working-folder path, and a work summary covering scene/object name, variables, signals, functions, coding mode, and run state. It is unambiguous what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as entry_get_project or entry_runtime_state, which appear to overlap with parts of this summary.

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: the listing of aggregated state suggests it is the 'overview/orientation' call, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. Nothing says when to prefer this over entry_get_project or entry_runtime_state, nor are any preconditions (e.g., being connected, having a project open) stated.

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