Programmability List Procedures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the quoting-related column context, but spends it on return values that an output schema already documents, and discloses nothing about result size, pagination, or default scoping.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a short first sentence, which is good. The second sentence is a long dangling clause about return columns that duplicates the output schema and distracts from the missing parameter guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-column sentence is largely redundant, and the description omits what an agent actually needs: how `pattern` filters, and whether an unscoped call enumerates every database/schema. The core purpose is clear but the call-shaping details are absent.

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 coverage is 67% and the uncovered parameter is `pattern`, which the description never mentions. The description adds no filtering semantics (is pattern a LIKE/regex? case-sensitive?) and nothing about the consequences of leaving database or schema_name null.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ("List stored procedures in a database or schema"), which distinguishes it from siblings like programmability_describe_procedure and programmability_list_functions. It does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast with them, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus programmability_describe_procedure or programmability_list_functions, and no explanation of what happens when database/schema_name are omitted (all databases? current context?). "in a database or schema" weakly implies optional scoping but leaves the agent to infer it.

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