cst_project_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists items but does not mention expected behavior for invalid paths, whether the list is flat or hierarchical, or any side effects (likely none). The minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and optional parameter, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and many siblings, the description adequately covers the main purpose and provides concrete path examples. It is complete enough for a simple listing tool but could mention that the output is a list of sub-items (e.g., names) and behavior for non-existent paths.

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% as the single parameter 'tree_path' has a description. The description adds example values (e.g., 'Components', 'Materials') which are helpful but largely redundant with the schema description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides marginal added value.

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 items in the CST project navigation tree with a specific verb ('List') and resource. It provides example subtree paths, distinguishing it from siblings that focus on specific item types (e.g., ports, materials) or actions (e.g., creating simulations). However, it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., 'contents of the entire tree').

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 exploring the project tree by offering an optional subtree path. It gives examples of valid paths but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative listing tools like cst_list_materials or cst_list_ports, and no when-not-to-use scenarios.

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