get_procedure

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

The description only says 'Load', implying a read operation, but provides no details on data returned, side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. With no annotations to fill the gap, the agent lacks essential behavioral context.

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 very short, which is good for conciseness, but the '3B.4 —' prefix appears to be a section number, which adds noise without value. The structuring is minimal but not wasteful.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at minimum clarify what 'load' returns. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the output or behavior, leaving the tool incomplete.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description adds no explanation of what 'id' represents (e.g., format, origin, constraints), leaving the parameter meaning entirely to inference.

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 ('Load') and the resource ('a procedure by id'), making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_procedure_step' or 'add_procedure', which reduces clarity in a tool-rich context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_procedure_step' or 'match_procedure'. The description omits context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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