List stored procedures

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a list operation and mentions optional filtering, but does not disclose details like whether system procedures are included, ordering, or return format. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the action and optional filter in under 20 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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the core function. It doesn't explain the return structure, but the tool name and sibling context make it obvious that it returns a list of procedures. The absence of annotations is a minor gap, but for a list operation this is acceptable.

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 only parameter 'schema' has a complete description in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description's mention of 'optionally filtered to a single schema' simply restates the schema's meaning, adding no additional nuance beyond the structured field.

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 and can optionally filter by schema. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables and list_views, using a specific verb and resource with an additional filtering nuance.

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 implies usage for discovering stored procedures, and the optional schema filter suggests when to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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