Pipes List Pipes

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds return-shape context about quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name, but does not explain pattern matching behavior, permissions, or pagination.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The second sentence adds useful row-name context, though part of it may overlap with the output schema.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not fully explain return values, but it still leaves the pattern parameter and filtering behavior unspecified. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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 67%, and the schema already documents the quoting requirement for database and schema_name. The description reinforces database/schema scoping but does not explain the pattern parameter or its filtering semantics.

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: listing Snowpipes, scoped to a database or schema. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as pipes_describe_pipe and pipes_create_pipe, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 scope 'in a database or schema' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus pipes_describe_pipe or pipes_get_pipe_status, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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