List procedures

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the content domain (specific procedure types an agent can keyword-match), which is real value. It does not state that this is a non-mutating catalog read, whether results are paginated, or what identifiers come back to feed get_procedure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose first and the inventory second. The long parenthetical is justified because the category names are the matching keywords an agent would use, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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 zero-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, a complete-enough definition: the agent knows what will be listed. The only gap is not telling the agent that the returned entries are the inputs to get_procedure, which is inferable from the sibling names.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing about argument semantics the description needs to compensate for. No parameter detail is required or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the maintenance and service procedures available") and the parenthetical inventory makes the scope concrete, distinguishing it from the sibling get_procedure which retrieves a single one. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, but the enumeration of procedure categories implies a browse/discovery role that precedes get_procedure. An agent can reasonably infer the usage, though it 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.