List World Models By Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds the relationship 'built from a given source agent,' which is useful but largely mirrors the schema parameter description. It does not contradict annotations and provides minimal additional behavioral 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?

The description is a single focused sentence that communicates the core operation and the key filtering condition. It is concise, with no redundant phrases, and front-loads the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with one parameter and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not explain what a 'world model' is or what the return shape looks like, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (the sole parameter agent_id has a description: 'The source agent id'). The description's phrase 'built from a given source agent' aligns with the schema but adds no new parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('world models') and a scoping qualifier ('built from a given source agent'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_world_model_create, lyzr_world_model_get, and lyzr_world_model_list_scenarios, clearly indicating a filtered read operation.

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 provides clear context: it lists world models associated with a specific source agent, so an agent knows when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., lyzr_world_model_get for a single model, or dashboard overview), which keeps it from a 5.

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