cst_search_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a read-only search operation ('Does not start CST'), which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses that it searches 'by topic filename,' which sets expectations about the query format. It could add more detail about what the search returns (e.g., file paths, snippets), but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second sentence adds the critical behavioral note and the usage directive. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, the key behavioral trait (no CST launch), and the usage directive. The main gap is the lack of detail about the return format and the exact matching semantics of the query parameter, but these are minor for a search tool of this simplicity.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description explains that 'query' is a topic filename, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'query' string. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's semantics beyond the schema's default/max/min values, nor does it clarify whether the query is a partial match, exact filename, or regex. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('installed official CST Python/VBA help'), and a specific scope ('by topic filename'). It also explicitly says it does not start CST, which distinguishes it from tools that launch the application. This is a clear, non-tautological statement that an agent can act on.

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 instructs the agent to 'Read the matching help before constructing API calls,' which is a clear directive on when to use this tool. It also implicitly distinguishes it from cst_read_help (which presumably reads a specific help file) by focusing on searching by topic filename. The 'Does not start CST' note further clarifies when it is safe to use without side effects.

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