call_hg_procedure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool calls a stored procedure but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the typical response format is. For a database operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the complexity of calling stored procedures in a database, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how to handle results, error conditions, or security implications. For a tool that could perform various database operations, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (procedure_name and arguments). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of procedure names, argument formatting, or special considerations. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Call') and target resource ('a stored procedure in Hologres database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'execute_hg_ddl_sql' or 'execute_hg_dml_sql', which might also interact with stored procedures or similar database operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include various SQL execution and database operation tools, there's no indication of whether this is for specific stored procedure calls, how it differs from general SQL execution, or any prerequisites for its use.

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