describe_programmable_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of exposing behavior. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and does not execute, which are critical safety-related behavioral traits. It does not mention error behavior or required permissions, but the core non-destructive nature is clearly stated, and the claim that it returns 'full definition and parameters' conveys the primary output.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the read-only caveat. Every phrase earns its place—no redundant words, and it avoids restating the tool name or schema details. Excellent 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns, and 'full T-SQL definition and parameters' does that adequately. It also includes the object types and the read-only behavior. The only minor gap is not specifying the return format (e.g., plain text vs. structured JSON), but given the simple parameter set and clear focus, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and optional behavior (auto-detection for object_type). The description text adds the list of supported object types but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or relationships beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra semantics.

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 specific action ('Get full T-SQL definition and parameters') and the target resource ('stored procedure, function, view, or trigger'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programmable_objects (which lists objects) and describe_table (which describes table structure), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implicitly distinguishes when to use this tool by noting it is read-only and does not execute, which sets it apart from query. It also lists the applicable object types, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when you need the definition, not to run it,' so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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