cst_connection_status

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

The description clearly states the return content (mode, availability, version, work directory). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a read-only operation (get status), which is sufficient. Could add that it does not modify any state.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Get the current CST Studio connection status') and then details what is included. No wasted words.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose and the output fields. Nothing 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?

No parameters defined, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter information. Schema coverage is 100% (no params).

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does: get CST Studio connection status. Lists specific information included (mode, availability, version, work directory). Clearly distinct from sibling tools which are about modifying or analyzing CST projects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, as a status checker, it's implicitly used to verify connection before performing other CST operations. Could be improved by stating that it should be called before any CST operations that require an active connection.

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