codegraph_entry_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds a useful semantic definition of an entry point, but it does not disclose operational details like whether the operation is read-only, whether an index must exist first, how results are ordered/grouped, or what the response shape looks like. The definition is meaningful but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses the second sentence to sharpen the concept. The only non-operational element is the 'Inspired by codegraph-ai...' attribution, which adds no selection or invocation value.

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 code-analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about expected results and prerequisites. It gives a strong definition but leaves the agent to infer return format and whether repository indexing is required, and it does not route the agent toward sibling call-graph tools when relevant.

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 100%, so the schema already documents repo_path, limit, and team_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline because the structured field descriptions cover semantics.

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 ('Find entry points in the codebase') and immediately enumerates concrete categories: main functions, HTTP handlers, CLI commands, event handlers. It also defines the core distinguishing criterion (called by external infrastructure, not by other code), which sets it apart from siblings like codegraph_callers and codegraph_callees.

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 definition provides clear context: use this when looking for externally invoked code rather than internal call relationships. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as codegraph_callers/codegraph_callees or state when not to use them, but the 'rather than by other code' phrasing gives enough inferential guidance.

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