List procedures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by clarifying that the tool focuses on a single module and returns declaration-level metadata, which helps set expectations beyond the structured annotations.

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: the first states exactly what is listed, and the second provides a practical use case. There is no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded ahead of the guidance.

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 tool has only 2 required parameters, both fully described by the schema, an output schema exists, and annotations already cover the safety model. The description adds the key intent and scope (single module, change-locating) with nothing essential missing.

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%, so both file_path and module_name are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the concept of 'one module', which aligns with module_name but does not materially extend the meaning of the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a precise resource: 'the Sub, Function and Property procedures in one module'. It also enumerates the returned attributes (kind, scope, line number, signature), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like xlide_list_modules that list modules rather than procedures.

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 a concrete use case: 'Use it to find where to change something without reading a long module in full.' This tells the agent when the tool is valuable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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