get_procedure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that a bare address returns no body, that the body window is capped at 200 lines, that a ready continuation call is included, and that a selected extension is read separately from the main configuration. It does not cover error/not-found behavior, but the core execution traits are clear.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the general purpose, the two address-mode behaviors, and the extension-isolation behavior. Key information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers address semantics, body windowing, continuation pagination, and extension handling. Config disambiguation is already documented in the schema, and the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema for `address` by explaining the `::` distinction that controls whether the body is returned, and for `extension` by noting it is read separately with explicit annotation meaning. The remaining parameters are already well documented in the 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 states a specific resource and distinct behaviors: it returns either a module's table of contents or a single procedure card from the loaded code export. It also explains the two address modes (`Module` vs `Module::Name`) and lists included elements (signature, compilation context, up-to-200-line body window), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like search_procedures or get_syntax.

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 gives clear usage context: use a bare module address for a table of contents without the body, and use `Модуль::Имя` for a full procedure card with body window and continuation call. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended invocation patterns are unambiguous.

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