list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format and mentions prerequisites, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent. It also lacks details on error handling or rate limits, which is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with clear sections (main purpose, prerequisite, workflow, see also, args, returns). It is concise, using bullet points and no redundant text. The main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, read-only list), the description covers the essential workflow, prerequisites, and return format. It could include more detail on potential errors or edge cases, but it is complete enough for most use cases.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting the parameter doc_id as 'L'ID du document' in the Args section and explaining how to obtain it via list_documents. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 it lists all tables in a Grist document ('Liste toutes les tables dans un document Grist'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_table and filter_sql_query by mentioning them in 'see also' and providing a workflow that positions this tool after list_documents and before list_columns.

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?

Explicitly provides prerequisites (list_documents to get doc_id) and a typical workflow (1. list_documents, 2. list_tables, 3. list_columns). It also lists alternative tools (create_table, filter_sql_query) in 'see also', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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