List World Model Test Cases

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already communicate the safe, read-only nature of the operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, or whether hidden test cases are included). Since it does not contradict annotations and adds the scope 'defined on a world model', it meets the baseline for simple list operations.

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, short sentence that directly conveys the action and target. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple CRUD-style list operation.

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), has no output schema, and relies on annotations for safety. The description adequately states the outcome ('List the test cases') but does not mention return format, pagination, or the relationship to sibling world-model tools (e.g., scenarios). While not incomplete for a basic list, it offers no extra context that would help an agent avoid confusion with similar tools.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'world_model_id'. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter—it does not mention that the ID must exist or that it refers to a specific world model resource. Thus, the description does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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') and resource ('test cases defined on a world model'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lyzr_world_model_list_scenarios and lyzr_world_model_list_personas. The title reinforces the purpose, leaving no ambiguity 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for read-only inspection, nor does it note any differences from similar list tools (e.g., lyzr_world_model_list_scenarios). For an agent, there is no explicit context about selection among siblings.

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