cst_list_results_tool

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

The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which provides minimum viable behavioral transparency even without annotations. However, the description does not explicitly confirm that no mutation occurs, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or any other behavioral trait that would fully carry the burden in the absence of annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the basic purpose it communicates.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a domain with many closely related read tools, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine how to specify the project/file or when to choose this tool over cst_read_result_tool, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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. The phrase '3D or schematic result tree' weakly hints that the module parameter selects between 3D and schematic modes, but it never names either parameter and gives no information about the cst_file parameter, leaving most parameter semantics 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('items of the 3D or schematic result tree'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as cst_read_result_tool or cst_read_s11_tool, so an agent must infer the distinction from context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit context beyond the bare purpose. The agent receives no help in deciding between listing result-tree items and reading specific results or S-parameters.

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