Get the description, purpose, and input schema of a named CST Studio Suite automation tool by passing its tool_name; use it to discover operations before calling them.
Alias of cst_runtime_describe_tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 does not indicate read-only vs destructive behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other operational trait beyond the bare alias relationship.
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 only one short sentence and is front-loaded, so there is no wasted wording. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a tool with an undocumented required parameter and no annotations.
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. But with no annotations, no parameter description, and no standalone purpose statement, the definition is incomplete for correct selection and invocation without prior knowledge of 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single required parameter 'tool_name' at all. The parameter must be documented by the description when the schema omits it, and it is not.
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 only says 'Alias of cst_runtime_describe_tool' and never states what the tool itself does. It relies entirely on the reader knowing the purpose of cst_runtime_describe_tool, so it is closer to a reference than a purpose statement.
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, nor any prerequisites. 'Alias of cst_runtime_describe_tool' implies equivalence but does not tell the agent when this alias is preferred over the referenced tool or over other describe/list siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.