cst_execute_vba

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses safety blocks (shell access, file I/O, external processes) and explains behavior differences between connected and offline modes. It does not cover error handling or return values, but the main behavioral aspects are addressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and absence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, safety, and modes. It lacks information about return value or side effects like project modifications, but is otherwise complete for a single-parameter 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%, but the description adds value by specifying that the code must not contain dangerous operations, supplementing the schema's 'VBA code to execute.' This provides practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 'Execute raw VBA code in CST Studio Suite,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning safety validation and two execution modes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool (to execute VBA code) and provides context about connected vs. offline modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like cst_vba_help or cst_list_vba_objects, which would further clarify usage boundaries.

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