get_procedure_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the limitation regarding dynamic execution and the source (ALL_ARGUMENTS). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the limitation implies it is a read operation.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a short note. It is front-loaded with the main action and returns format, followed by a critical usage note. No superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, return columns, and a key limitation. It could mention that the tool assumes Oracle database, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only explains package_name ('required when the procedure lives inside a package'). The meanings of owner and object_name are implied but not explicitly described, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the full argument list for a stored procedure or function from ALL_ARGUMENTS, and lists the columns returned. It clearly distinguishes this from execution by noting that dynamic execution is not supported.

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?

It provides clear context: 'This tool is for discovery and understanding only' and directly states that Fusion MCP does not support dynamic procedure execution. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the context implies when not to use it.

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