Retourne la liste des tables configurées dans l’application, utilisée notamment pour le mode restauration ou la gestion des tables en salle.

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'configured tables' entails. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by existing structured data without adding significant value.

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 'Liste des Lister les tables' is overly concise to the point of being nonsensical and repetitive, failing to convey useful information. It is not front-loaded with key details, and the single phrase does not earn its place as it adds no clarity beyond the tool name.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what 'tables' refer to in this context, the scope of listing, or how results are structured, leaving gaps despite the straightforward nature of the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter (format with enum values), the description provides no parameter information. However, the schema fully documents the format parameter with enum and default, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, though the description adds no compensatory value.

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 'Liste des Lister les tables' is tautological and essentially restates the tool name 'data_list_tables' in French, providing no meaningful clarification. While the title mentions returning configured tables for restoration or management, the description itself fails to articulate a specific verb+resource action or distinguish this tool from its many sibling list tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although the title hints at use cases like restoration mode or table management, the description itself lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without practical usage context.

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