sql_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't state whether this is safe/non-destructive, how many results are returned, what columns/format the output contains, or performance implications for large databases. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope clearly. Nothing extraneous exists.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could add value by noting the output format or result set characteristics. The tool is straightforward enough that this is a mild gap rather than a critical one.

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 100% — the single parameter 'filter' is fully described in the schema with a clear example ('Get%'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The schema does the heavy lifting here, and the parameter semantics are adequately covered.

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 ('List'), resource ('stored procedures'), and scope ('in the active database'). It's specific and distinguishes from siblings like sql_get_stored_proc_def, which retrieves a single procedure definition rather than listing all procedures.

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 when to use it (when you need an overview of stored procedures in the database), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like sql_get_stored_proc_def (for a single definition) or provide guidance on when not to use it. The active-database scoping is stated, which adds context, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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