cst_list_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not explicitly state it does not modify data or require permissions. The description is straightforward but lacks depth; a score of 3 is appropriate for a simple tool.

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, to the point, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and adds usage context efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of paths), but that is not critical. The description is nearly complete.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating the parameter is optional and used to narrow the listing, which is a minor addition. It does not provide substantial new meaning 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 the tool lists all available results in the CST result tree, with optional subtree filtering. The verb 'List' and resource 'CST result tree' are specific, and the mention of discovering results before extraction distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_get_result_summary or cst_export_result.

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 explicitly says the tool is 'Useful for discovering what simulation results are available before extracting specific data,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives explicitly, but the context is sufficient.

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