find_procedure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that all stored fields are returned, never sampled or truncated, and that scanner warnings appear in a second content block and are advisory rather than compiler errors. This gives useful behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action word 'Locate'. The first sentence packs in many field groups without filler, though the phrase 'module imports and only lists' reads awkwardly and slightly obscures meaning.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned field groups, warns about sampling/truncation behavior, and explains the second content block. It does not mention not-found behavior or exact-match semantics, but these are minor gaps for this kind of lookup tool.

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 already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage and provides an example value. The description adds no additional meaning about the name parameter beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline score applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: locating a SWAT+ procedure, and enumerates the returned facts (source file, line range, module, imports, arguments, locals, case vocabularies). This makes the tool's scope clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like search_fields or describe_type.

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 use when a procedure's stored details are needed and mentions when warnings are returned. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer find_procedure over related sibling tools, so routing is left to inference.

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