get_procedure

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, which is adequate. It does not detail side effects, permissions, or error handling, but the presence of an output schema covers return values. The description meets the minimum but lacks depth for a no-annotation setting.

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 short and to the point: one sentence for the action, one for support context, then a concise list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary 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 (fetching a procedure definition) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, supported environments, and required arguments. An agent has enough information to use the tool correctly.

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%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds meaning by naming and briefly explaining each parameter: workspace (name or GUID), item (warehouse or SQL endpoint), and qualified_name (dot-separated, with example). This compensates for the schema gap, though more detail on GUIDs could be added.

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 starts with 'Fetch the full definition of a stored procedure (schema.proc)', clearly stating the specific verb (fetch) and resource (stored procedure definition). It distinguishes from siblings like list_procedures and create_procedure by specifying 'full definition' and mentioning the qualified name format.

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 states that stored procedures are supported on both Fabric Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_procedures for names or create_procedure for creation.

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