cst_discover_farfield_monitors

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 discloses the mechanism (Result folder and tree-path heuristics) and the action (list), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether the project must be open, or what the return format is. The Turkish sentence reinforces the listing behavior but adds no new behavioral details.

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 English sentence is concise and informative, front-loading the main action. However, the Turkish sentence duplicates the meaning without adding unique value, making the description redundant. The overall length is short, but not 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be open or farfield monitors must already exist), nor does it specify the exact return shape (e.g., list of names or IDs). An agent may need to rely on the tool name or additional context to understand the output.

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 zero parameters and the schema reflects that with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain any parameters; it correctly focuses on the tool's action. Baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('farfield monitors') with an explicit source ('project Result folder and tree-path heuristics'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like cst_list_results or cst_get_farfield, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cst_list_results or cst_list_saved_results. The context of discovering farfield monitors implies its use, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so usage is only implied.

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