Test Tool Credential

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'live test.' It does not disclose potential side effects, network interactions, or whether the test modifies credential state. The description does not contradict annotations but also does not meaningfully extend them.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. It contains no filler or superfluous details, making it optimally concise.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks detail about what a 'live test' returns or whether it has side effects. Given the openWorldHint and lack of output schema, some additional context about expected outcomes would be helpful, though the description is adequate for very basic usage.

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 already describes credential_id as 'Tool credential id' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline, so a score of 3 is appropriate per the high schema coverage baseline.

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 'Run a live test of a tool credential' uses a specific action ('Run a live test') and resource ('tool credential'), clearly distinguishing it from CRUD credential tools and status-check tools among the siblings. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like lyzr_credential_create, lyzr_refresh_tool_credential_status, or lyzr_is_tool_credential_test_supported. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow placement, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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