list_procedures

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 only states what the tool does, not how it behaves: no mention of pagination, large result handling, default server/database resolution, error cases, or output format. This is a significant gap for a list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function and the optional filter without any wasted words. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 list tool, the description covers the basic purpose and optional filter, but lacks details about output shape, default behavior for omitted server/database, and interaction with sibling list tools. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, more context would be expected to fully guide correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% – each parameter (schema, server, database) has a basic description. The tool description adds only that schema filtering is optional, which is already implied by the schema's own description. No extra meaning is provided beyond the structured schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('stored procedures'), and the scope ('in a database, optionally filtered by schema'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_procedure by explicitly naming stored procedures as the target.

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 implies usage for retrieving stored procedures but does not contrast with related tools (e.g., describe_procedure for details, list_tables for tables). There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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