cst_call_tool

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 dynamic-dispatch nature but omits authentication needs, error behavior for invalid tool names, validation of args, or side effects of invoking arbitrary tools.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the core idea.

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 annotations, zero schema descriptions, and a non-trivial meta-invocation role, the description is too sparse. It omits usage context, argument handling, and failure modes, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it correctly beyond the most obvious case.

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 only implies that tool_name is the tool's name ('by name'); it says nothing about the args object, its shape, or how arguments should be keyed, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names the verb 'Call', the resource 'any registered CST MCP tool', and the mechanism 'through the registry (dynamic dispatch)'. It distinguishes the tool as a meta-invoker but does not contrast it with siblings like cst_runtime_invoke_tool or cst_toolbox_invoke_tool, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for dynamic dispatch rather than direct calls, which is not stated.

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