toast_list_menus

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden alone. It discloses the core read/list behavior but omits what happens when the optional restaurantGuid is absent, whether results are paginated, and any auth/read-only guarantees. These are meaningful gaps, especially because the parameter is schema-optional.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the core meaning. It is appropriately compact for a simple 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves material questions unanswered: the behavior when restaurantGuid is omitted, the response shape, and the precise relationship to toast_get_menu. Given the low complexity, a couple of added clauses would make it complete.

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 schema has one parameter, restaurantGuid, with an empty description and 0% coverage. The phrase 'for a restaurant' adds only a generic scope hint and never explains the parameter's format, purpose, or the effect of omitting it. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('all menus'), and a scope ('for a restaurant'), which is enough to distinguish it from single-menu getters like toast_get_menu. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, so it stops short of a fully disambiguating definition.

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?

It implies the use case: when all menus are needed rather than a single menu or menu-group detail. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent has to infer 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.