Compute Services List Image Repositories

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a note about output columns (quoted_name, quoted_qualified_name) and quoting rules, which is helpful context. However, because an output schema exists, this note largely repeats return-value information, and the description still omits scope, pagination, and ordering behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence about quoted names is somewhat awkwardly spliced on with "also has," but it stays brief.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the essential gaps are filter semantics and result scope. The description addresses the return-value shape but leaves unclear whether the tool lists account-wide or within the current database/schema, and whether results are limited or paginated.

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 description never mentions the pattern, database, or schema_name parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, so the schema covers two parameters, but their descriptions only explain quoting and not what the parameters filter. With no compensating detail in the description, an agent cannot tell how the filters combine or what pattern matching means.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: "List OCI image repositories in Snowflake." This clearly distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as compute_services_list_services, compute_services_list_streamlits, and compute_services_list_compute_pools. However, it never explicitly says which sibling to choose for a related need.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of a related tool. It also does not explain how the optional pattern/database/schema_name filters narrow the listing, or whether results are account-wide or context-scoped. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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