cst_runtime_list_tools_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention permissions or limitations.

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. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument list tool.

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, the description leaves the agent to infer how 'runtime commands' differ from runtime pipelines, toolbox tools, or MCP tools, which is a gap given the many similarly named siblings.

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 and an empty schema with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, zero parameters establish a baseline of 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter details because there are none.

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 ('List') and resource ('runtime commands') scoped to this MCP server. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as cst_runtime_list_pipelines_tool, cst_list_mcp_tools_tool, or cst_toolbox_list_tools_tool, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 guidance is given on when to call this versus cst_runtime_describe_tool, cst_runtime_args_template_tool, or other list-oriented tools. The description only states what it returns, leaving usage implicit at best.

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