list_stored_procs

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 that the tool lists stored procedures and returns a dictionary with specific fields, but does not mention behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). The description adds basic context but lacks depth on operational 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 low complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, and return values, providing all necessary context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without overloading with unnecessary details.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'schema' filters by schema name and 'pattern' uses SQL LIKE syntax with examples (e.g., 'sp_%', '%User%'), clarifying usage that the schema alone does not provide.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available stored procedures in the database'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_tables, list_databases, or describe_stored_proc. It precisely defines what is being listed without ambiguity.

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 usage for filtering stored procedures by schema or name pattern, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or describe_stored_proc. It provides clear context for filtering but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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