cst_runtime_invoke_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 indicates a command invocation but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, error behavior, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the core action, though it could include a brief qualifying clause without becoming verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it lacks prerequisites, side-effect warnings, and instructions for obtaining a valid tool_name.

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 does identify both parameters conceptually (tool_name as 'by name' and args as 'JSON arguments'), adding that args should be JSON, but it omits requiredness, allowed values, and structural details.

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 (Invoke) and resource (runtime command) with the key input mechanism (by name with JSON arguments). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from similar siblings like cst_toolbox_invoke_tool or cst_call_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related runtime tools such as cst_runtime_list_tools_tool or cst_runtime_describe_tool. The agent receives no routing information.

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