invoke_pdb_procedure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals an important constraint—arbitrary Scheme source is intentionally rejected—and clarifies acceptable value formats (JSON scalars, arrays, scheme_symbol objects). It also notes the procedure is 'live', indicating direct execution. These details go beyond a simple invocation statement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundant statements. The format restriction is presented clearly and compactly.

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 generic invocation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose, input format, and a critical restriction. An output schema exists to describe return values, so its absence in the description is acceptable. It could be more complete with a brief note about needing the procedure signature from describe_pdb_procedure, but overall it is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the allowed value shapes ('JSON scalars, arrays, or {"scheme_symbol": "ENUM-VALUE"} objects') and the positional/keyword distinction, which maps to the args and keywords parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly name the parameters or provide examples of how to construct arguments.

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 ('Invoke') and the target ('a live PDB procedure'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like search_pdb and describe_pdb_procedure, which are for discovery and inspection, while this tool is for execution.

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?

Guidance on when to use this tool is implied rather than explicit. The description implies callers must know the procedure name and provide structured values, but it doesn't explicitly mention consulting describe_pdb_procedure first or warn against using it for arbitrary Scheme. No clear alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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