cst_runtime_args_template_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 disclosure burden. It only states what is returned and omits whether the call is read-only, has side effects, requires prior runtime detection, or depends on other tools. The output schema covers return shape but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 a simple retrieval tool, even if other dimensions reveal missing information.

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 no annotations, one undocumented required parameter, and many sibling runtime tools, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It does not explain how tool_name relates to cst_runtime_list_tools_tool or when to prefer this over cst_runtime_describe_tool.

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 one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'for one runtime command' but never names the tool_name parameter, explains its expected format, or clarifies how to obtain a valid value. It adds only slight context over the bare schema.

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 ('Return') and resource ('argument template for one runtime command'), making the tool's basic function clear. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling runtime tools such as cst_runtime_describe_tool or cst_runtime_invoke_tool, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or the workflow context in which an argument template is needed, leaving usage entirely implied by the tool name.

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