coremcp

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

The description adds context about what information is returned (parameters), which goes beyond the annotations. However, annotations already cover key behavioral traits (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every sentence 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 tool with good annotations, a single parameter, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it versus alternatives. The main gap is lack of information about return format (though no output schema exists), but the description mentions 'with their parameters' which provides some context.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'source_name'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Lists all stored procedures') and resource ('in a database source'), including what information is returned ('with their parameters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tables' and 'list_views' by focusing on stored procedures specifically.

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 explicitly provides an alternative tool ('execute_procedure') for running procedures, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool (for listing) versus when to use another (for execution). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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