list_stored_procedures

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. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (though 'lista' implies so), whether it requires special permissions, what happens with an empty database, or the output format. For a read-only listing tool, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

A single, short sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the core action, though it errs toward under-specification rather than elegant conciseness.

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 tool with 2 undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, this short description is inadequate. It cannot help the agent understand the parameters' semantics, the output structure, or edge cases. Sibling tools exist for related listing/definition operations, so more differentiation context would help.

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%, meaning neither the schema properties nor the description explain the two parameters (schema, namePattern). The description doesn't mention the parameters at all, so the agent has no idea that schema filters by database schema or that namePattern supports pattern-based name filtering. With 0% coverage and no compensating description, this is a significant gap.

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 'Lista los stored procedures de la base de datos' (Lists the stored procedures of the database) identifies the verb (list) and resource (stored procedures), making the purpose fairly clear. However, it's generic and doesn't provide scope detail like how it differs from siblings such as list_tables, list_views, or list_triggers, all of which share the same 'list' pattern.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool vs. alternatives, which matters here since siblings like get_object_definition and list_triggers overlap conceptually in database introspection. No context on filtering by schema/name patterns or how this differs from other listing tools is provided.

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