list_procedures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about result size, truncation, ordering, pagination, or what a returned row contains. For a catalog-scan tool in a database with many objects, those omissions are material.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding, and the resource list comes first where it matters. The second sentence largely duplicates schema content, so it earns its place only marginally, keeping this just under a top score.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the call returns and any behavioral caveats. It instead stops after naming the object classes and filters, leaving return shape, volume, and read-only confirmations entirely to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents type, schema, and namePattern in detail, including the LIKE semantics and the default '%'. The description only restates that these filters exist and are optional, adding essentially nothing beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 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 ('List') and the exact resource classes it returns (stored procedures, functions, packages, types), which is more informative than the bare name. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as list_objects, search_objects, list_types, or describe_plsql, so an agent cannot easily tell when this one is the right pick.

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 second sentence lists the available filters ('Optional schema, LIKE name pattern and object type filter'), which is parameter information rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_objects or list_types, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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