cst_runtime_usage_guide_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. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful behavioral context for a zero-parameter tool. However, the description does not disclose connection requirements, side effects, or other operational traits that an agent might need when selecting among CST tools.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description needs only to identify what is returned and the relevant scope. It does that clearly, so an agent can invoke the tool without confusion. The main remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which is already reflected in the lower usage-guidelines score.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies under the rules when parameter count is 0.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('machine-readable usage guide'), and a scope ('runtime family'), so an agent knows it retrieves documentation rather than performing an action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as cst_runtime_describe_tool or cst_toolbox_usage_guide_tool, but the 'runtime family' qualifier gives useful separation.

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 description states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. It does not tell an agent whether to call this instead of cst_runtime_describe_tool, cst_runtime_list_tools_tool, or other runtime_* tools.

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