cst_toolbox_list_tools_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the alias relationship — no read-only/mutation status, no side effects, no return behavior. Given the output schema exists, the return format is covered, but the alias pointer is the only added context.

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?

It is a single six-word sentence with no wasted words and the alias relationship is front-loaded. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, there is little surface area to document, and pointing at cst_runtime_list_tools_tool transfers most needed information. Still, an agent must open the referenced tool's definition to learn anything substantive, so the definition is only adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey; per the baseline rule for a parameterless tool, a 4 is appropriate. The description cannot be expected to document parameters that do not exist.

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 only that this tool is an alias of cst_runtime_list_tools_tool, which implies the same purpose (listing tools available in the toolbox) but never states the verb or resource itself. It usefully distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the canonical tool, so an agent can route to the right one.

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?

Naming an alias hints that this tool is interchangeable with cst_runtime_list_tools_tool, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other, nor gives any condition or exclusion. Any usage guidance must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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