toast_list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing but does not explain whether the restaurantGuid is required, what happens if omitted, whether pagination or limits apply, or what the response shape is. The behavior beyond 'list all tables' is largely undisclosed.

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 clear sentence that is easy to scan and does not waste words. It is appropriately brief for a simple listing tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation, a one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The agent cannot tell whether restaurantGuid is needed, how the output is structured, or how this differs from related table/service-area tools. The description leaves too much to inference.

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 one optional parameter (restaurantGuid) with an empty description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The text mentions 'a restaurant' but does not explicitly connect it to restaurantGuid, explain how the parameter filters results, or describe what happens when it is absent. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all tables'), clearly indicating this returns tables for a restaurant. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling toast_get_table, but the plural 'all tables' vs. singular implies a collection operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of toast_get_table or toast_list_service_areas, and no mention of prerequisites or context for the optional restaurantGuid parameter. The description only states what it does, not when or under what circumstances it should be chosen.

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