cst_read_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: the help is 'paginated', 'official local' (implying offline/static), and 'No GUI or solver' indicates a headless, non-interactive, read-only operation. This is strong for a simple read tool, though it doesn't mention error handling or edge cases like invalid topics.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second delivers a crisp clarification. Every term 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 straightforward read operation, the description covers the main purpose and basic behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not specify the return format (e.g., plain text, formatting), how pagination parameters interact, or failure modes. This leaves some gaps an agent might need to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only the concept of pagination and hints that `topic` comes from `cst_search_help`, but it does not explain the meaning or format of `topic`, `offset`, or `max_chars` beyond what the schema already shows (type/defaults). Thus it provides minimal additional value for parameter understanding.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('official local CST help topic'), and explicitly ties it to cst_search_help, which distinguishes it from that sibling. The phrase 'No GUI or solver' further clarifies that this is a direct, headless read operation, differentiating it from simulation or interactive tools.

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 a workflow: first use cst_search_help to obtain a topic, then call this tool to read it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use cst_vba_help for VBA-specific help'). The guidance is contextual but not fully explicit.

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