cst_list_saved_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no connection or CST GUI is required, that it uses cst.results, and that in-progress files are off-limits. These are useful behavioral constraints, and the verb 'list' implies a non-destructive read operation. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or error behavior, but the included context is valuable.

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 with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional constraints (no connection, not for in-progress files) are stated efficiently. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the tool's behavior and parameters. It covers the returned data type and prerequisites, but omits parameter semantics entirely and does not mention return format or error conditions. For a tool with pagination and filtering parameters, this is incomplete.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters. It never mentions project_path, limit, offset, or contains, so an agent cannot infer that limit/offset control pagination or that contains filters results. This is a critical gap given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 exact result tree paths and run IDs from a saved, unpacked, completed .cst file. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource, and differentiates itself from sibling result-listing tools by specifying 'saved' and 'no connection required', so an agent can distinguish it from live project tools like cst_list_results.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when working with a saved, unpacked, completed .cst file and no connection or GUI is needed. It also provides an explicit exclusion ('Do not use a file currently being solved'). However, it does not name alternative tools such as cst_list_results, so the guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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