get_object_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool returns code and parameters, which adds some transparency about output content. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, failure modes for non-existent objects, or how it behaves for objects that aren't SPs/views/triggers.

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?

Two clear sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words. Slightly under-specified but appropriately concise.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and one usage context. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of the code are returned for views vs triggers, error behavior, and the significance of the schema parameter. It's adequate but not thorough for a tool used to inspect code before making modifications.

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 50% (the 'name' parameter has a description, 'schema' does not). The description adds the context that 'name' refers to a SP, vista, o trigger, slightly extending the schema's 'Nombre del objeto'. However, it doesn't explain the schema parameter's default behavior or whether it's needed for non-dbo schemas.

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 it returns full T-SQL code for a SP, view, or trigger, with parameters if it's a SP. This specifies the verb+resource well. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_table_definition, though the object types named (SP, vista, trigger) differentiate it adequately since sibling get_table_definition presumably handles tables.

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 second sentence gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Úsala para analizar un SP y proponer ajustes' (use it to analyze a SP and propose adjustments). However, there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, and it doesn't clarify when to choose list_stored_procedures or get_table_definition instead.

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