pm_knowledge_entrypoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'load documentation' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, idempotent, or makes network requests. For a simple load operation, more transparency is expected.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no filler. The structure efficiently communicates the core functionality and the two main modes.

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?

The description is minimally complete for a simple tool with one parameter. It lacks details about the return format, error handling, or examples. Given no output schema, the description could have provided more context about what the agent can expect after calling the 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description repeats some of that context but adds value by explaining 'Greenfield = new project from PM baseline' and 'Brownfield = migrating existing codebase', which helps the agent understand the enum values.

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 clearly states the tool loads entrypoint documentation for greenfield and brownfield projects, distinguishing between the two modes and an overview. It uses specific verbs and resources, differentiating it from sibling tools like pm_knowledge and pm_knowledge_contributing.

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?

The description explains when to use each mode (greenfield for new projects, brownfield for migration, overview for decision tree), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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