Find Entry Points

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds important context: the classification by kind, ranking by reach, and the conceptual role as reachability roots (the inverse of dead code). It doesn't cover return format or pagination, but the read-only safety profile is well established via annotations, so this is a minor gap.

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 information-dense sentences that are front-loaded with what the tool lists, followed by when to use it and how it relates to siblings. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with an output-free description, the definition is complete: it tells the agent what it returns (classified entry points), when to call it (orientation), and how it fits with other tools. No important behavioral or usage details are missing.

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?

There is only one parameter (project), and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics, but with a single well-documented parameter, the baseline is already high. No need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb (List) and a clearly-defined resource (the ways into the system: route/controller handlers, test entries, framework plugin registrations, exported symbols), and explicitly characterizes it as the public API surface. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_modules (structure) and find_dead_code (its inverse).

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it first when orienting in an unfamiliar codebase' and explains what question it answers. It names sibling tools and clarifies its complementary/inverse relationship to them, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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