list_entry_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-like operation (detect and list) but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or mention any side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about behavioral traits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without any fluff. Every word contributes to the understanding, making it highly concise.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns (likely entry points). It covers the main intent and scope, though it could optionally mention the return format (e.g., list of strings).

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what 'entry points' are (main, handlers, HTTP routes). This context helps the agent understand the purpose of the parameters, earning a score above baseline 3.

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 verb (detect and list), the resource (entry points in a project), and provides concrete examples (main, handlers, HTTP routes). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on entry points detection, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 implies usage for discovering entry points but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execution_flow or trace_path. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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