hebbrix_list_procedures

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the result is scoped to the current tenant and only to learned procedures, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as pagination semantics, default filtering by active_only, or how category and collection_id interact.

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 with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, object, and scope, and 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?

The output schema covers the return shape and all parameters have defaults, so a basic call is feasible without further info. Still, the overall context is thin: five filtering parameters are undocumented, and no usage guidance or behavior details are provided, leaving an agent to infer important semantics.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Parameter names like skip, limit, category, active_only, and collection_id are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('learned procedures'), and the scope ('owned by the current tenant'), which distinguishes it from procedure-specific siblings like hebbrix_get_procedure and hebbrix_delete_procedure. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar list/search siblings such as hebbrix_list or hebbrix_search, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like hebbrix_get_procedure, hebbrix_list, or hebbrix_search_entities. The listing purpose is implied, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated, which is a significant gap given the large sibling tool set.

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