List World Model Scenarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply (e.g., return format, error behavior, or whether the world model must exist). The description is consistent but minimally informative.

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, concise sentence that contains no extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the verb and resource directly.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema) and annotations are strong, but the description still lacks detail about return values, pagination, or ordering of scenarios. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps, especially since no output schema exists.

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 100% and the parameter 'world_model_id' is documented as 'The world model id'. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('scenarios defined on a world model'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like lyzr_world_model_list_personas, though the resource type is specific enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context. It is a bare statement of functionality with no usage context.

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