cst_toolbox_detect_tool

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

No annotations are provided and the description discloses nothing about behavior — no indication that this is a read-only detection operation, no side effects, no runtime requirements. The description carries the full burden here and supplies none of it.

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 one-line description is concise but under-specified rather than efficient — it omits the actual meaning of the aliased operation. Brevity here reflects missing content, not disciplined front-loading.

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 described, and there are no parameters. The alias statement is the one essential fact, but the description does not convey the underlying detect operation's purpose, leaving an agent to consult the sibling definition.

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 to explain; the baseline for an empty schema is 4. The description neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 it is an alias of cst_runtime_detect_tool, which restates a relationship rather than stating what the tool actually does. An agent still does not know what 'detect' means here, and it is not distinguished from cst_detect_tool or other detect siblings.

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 on when to use this alias versus cst_runtime_detect_tool, cst_detect_tool, or cst_call_tool. The alias relationship implies equivalence but does not say when an agent should prefer this name over the original.

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