list_procedures

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, contradicting the description's 'Lists' which implies a read-only operation. The description does not address this paradox or explain any potential side effects, leading to agent confusion.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a sibling reference. No unnecessary information, every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers listing procedures with parameters. However, the contradiction between annotations and description is unresolved, and no output format hint is given, making it incomplete for safe usage.

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 single parameter 'source_name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 stored procedures with their parameters in a database source. It differentiates from sibling 'execute_procedure' by directing users to that tool for execution.

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 context for use (listing procedures) and recommends 'execute_procedure' as an alternative for running. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare with other list siblings, but the resource-specific naming provides sufficient guidance.

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