cst_schematic_object_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (list methods) without revealing traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires an active project, or the format of the output. The lack of side-effect or output information leaves the agent underinformed.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose and includes relevant examples. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with zero redundant words. Every element 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?

For a simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and gives sufficient context via examples. The only minor gap is the lack of specification about the output format (e.g., array of method names), but the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

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 description coverage is 100% with one parameter that already describes its meaning as 'Schematic object name, e.g. Block or Net.' The description adds similar information with more examples but does not provide additional semantic nuance or formatting details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 public methods for a specific schematic object, with concrete examples like Block, Net, ExternalPort, etc. The verb 'List' and resource 'public methods for one project.schematic object' are specific and distinct from sibling tools such as 'cst_schematic_list_objects' which lists objects, not 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 provides context by stating it's for 'one project.schematic object' and gives examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites like an open project. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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