get_procedure_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—returning the full SQL definition—but lacks details on permission requirements, error behavior for missing objects, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only getter, the behavior is fairly straightforward, but not fully elaborated.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return value ('full SQL definition') and target resource. It is adequate but could briefly mention the default schema behavior or error handling; however, given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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% for both parameters (schema and procedureName), providing clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond confirming both procedures and functions are supported, which is already reflected in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('full SQL definition of a stored procedure or function'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stored_procedures (which lists) and get_view_definition (which targets views), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when needing a procedure/function definition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No mention of when not to use it (e.g., for views) or exclusions, leaving the context only implied.

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