cst_schematic_list_objects

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool lists objects and their method counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or require no authentication, nor does it describe the output structure beyond examples. A slight improvement would clarify that it only retrieves metadata.

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 only two sentences, with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action and resource, followed by examples and a note on method counts. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it lists and why to use it. The examples help the agent understand the type of data returned. However, without an output schema, the description could elaborate on the exact format of returned objects (e.g., list of names and numerical counts) to be fully 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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not add parameter information because none exists. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no unnecessary details and the absence of parameters is clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('public members exposed by project.schematic'). It provides concrete examples of objects (Block, Net, ExternalPort, etc.) and mentions 'method counts,' which precisely defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like cst_schematic_list or cst_schematic_object_methods.

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 states 'Use this to discover CST Design Studio schematic objects' which gives clear context for when to employ this tool. However, it does not provide exclusions or mention when not to use it (e.g., if you need detailed object methods, use cst_schematic_object_methods instead).

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