call_stored_proc

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 mentions the return structure but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling details, transaction behavior, or whether this is a read-only or mutating operation. The description is insufficient for a tool that executes arbitrary database procedures.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal but effective sentences. The procedure naming example is helpful without being verbose. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise by leveraging the output schema.

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 executing stored procedures (which can be read-only or mutating), the description is incomplete despite having an output schema. It lacks crucial context about database connection requirements, transaction implications, and security considerations. The output schema helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'procedure' with naming convention examples and 'params' with dictionary format guidance. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail about parameter types or validation.

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 'execute' and the resource 'stored procedure', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'execute_query' or 'describe_stored_proc', which would require more specific context about when to use stored procedures versus direct queries.

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 like 'execute_query' or 'describe_stored_proc'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active database connection) or typical use cases for stored procedures versus direct SQL execution.

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