Governance List Roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each row carries quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name, which is minor output-shape context rather than behavioral disclosure; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or pattern matching semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. But the second sentence is a dense, comma-heavy clause about output column names that duplicates information already present in the output schema, while the one input parameter goes undocumented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is otherwise a simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage. The one real gap is the unexplained 'pattern' filter — the description is nearly complete but misses the only thing an agent must decide before calling.

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 single parameter 'pattern' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions the parameter at all. An agent cannot tell whether pattern is a SQL LIKE pattern, a regex, a case-sensitive prefix, or how it affects the listing.

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 — listing roles in the Snowflake account — which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the near-name-colliding siblings (governance_describe_role, governance_list_grants_to_role), leaving the agent to infer which role-related tool fits when.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as governance_describe_role for details or governance_list_grants_to_role for grants, and no statement about when the pattern argument should be supplied. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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