list_programmable_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only and metadata nature, which gives a basic safety signal. However, it does not mention potential result set size, whether it returns names only or full definitions, or any behavior regarding missing schemas or filters.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the key verb and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but does not describe return value shape or any behavioral constraints beyond 'metadata'. For a listing tool, this is adequate but leaves room for more detail about what the result actually contains.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters (schema with default dbo, object_type with allowed values). The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists stored procedures, functions, views, and triggers, with an explicit read-only metadata qualifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists tables) and describe_programmable_object (which targets a single object).

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 usage context is implied by the description—agents can infer it is for enumerating programmable objects—but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusionary conditions. No mention of list_tables or describe_programmable_object as alternatives.

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