describe_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 implies a read-only operation by using 'Get,' but doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. The description adds some context by detailing the return structure, but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are efficient, but the use of a dictionary format in the return description could be slightly more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the parameter semantics and return values in detail, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully document returns. However, it lacks context on usage relative to siblings or connection requirements.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the 'procedure' parameter with examples (e.g., 'dbo.sp_GetUser' or 'sp_GetUser'), clarifying optional schema inclusion. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get parameter information for a stored procedure,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'list_stored_procs,' which reduces the score from a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'describe_table' for table metadata or 'list_stored_procs' for listing procedures, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an active connection or database context.

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