cst_health_check_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Check' implies a non-mutating diagnostic and the listed targets define scope, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or required permissions. With an output schema present, return details need not be explained.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the list of checked components. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description identifies all checks performed and is sufficient to invoke the tool. It lacks sibling differentiation and usage context, but the core invocation context is complete.

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, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameters for the description to clarify; no parameter semantics are needed.

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?

States the verb 'Check' and enumerates four specific targets: CST install, Python libraries, workspace, and running Design Environments. The purpose is clear, but the description does not differentiate this tool from sibling diagnostic tools such as cst_detect_tool, cst_toolbox_detect_tool, or cst_runtime_detect_tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description does not tell the agent when to prefer this health check over other detection or environment-listing siblings like cst_detect_tool or cst_list_design_environments_tool.

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