cst_run_solver_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral value by stating that CST's own diagnostics are reported on failure, which tells the agent how errors surface. It omits other important traits for a solver run: expected duration/blocking behavior, whether it can be interrupted, and what side effects it has on the project state.

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; the action and the failure-handling behavior are both stated without waste.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, for an execution tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should say more about runtime behavior (blocking, duration, effect on project state) to be 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?

There is a single parameter, allow_low_memory, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it. Since the count is 1 rather than 0, the baseline-4 rule for zero params does not apply, and the tool does not compensate for the total absence of schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('the configured solver'), and the qualifier 'configured' links it to prior solver setup via cst_set_solver. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that also execute solvers, such as cst_sweep_run_tool or cst_runtime_invoke_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?

'The configured solver' implies a prerequisite (solver must be set up first), which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use exclusion, and no mention of alternatives like sweep_run or runtime_invoke for parallel execution paths.

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