vunit_list_tests

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output format (lib.entity[.proc]) and the notable behavior that a simulator is not required, which is not captured in annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the format and simulator requirement efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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, zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides all necessary information: what it lists, in what format, and under what conditions (no simulator). Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The description's mention of the test case format adds context that complements the empty parameter list, satisfying the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 'all test cases' and defines the format (lib.entity[.proc]). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like vunit_list_files and vunit_status, which serve different purposes.

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 clarifies that this tool lists tests the project knows about and explicitly notes that it does not require a simulator. This provides clear context for when it is applicable, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it.

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