snowflake_cortex_extract_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action ('extract direct answer') without explaining what happens if no answer is found, whether the output is a single sentence or a span, or any limitations. There is no mention of output format, error behavior, or how the tool handles ambiguous questions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. However, it is almost too terse, omitting crucial details that a slightly longer description could include without sacrificing brevity. While it is efficient, the lack of substantive content makes it merely adequate rather than exemplary.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the existence of many sibling Cortex tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide usage guidance, parameter explanations, or behavioral expectations. Although an output schema exists (which may clarify return structure), the description alone doesn't equip an agent to correctly distinguish this tool from snowflake_cortex_search or snowflake_cortex_summarize, and it fails to address how the answer is extracted or formatted.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references the two inputs: 'source document/text' (source_text) and 'question' (question), but does not explicitly map them or explain their roles or expected formats. For example, it doesn't clarify that source_text can be a long passage or that question should be a well-formed natural language query. This is only a partial hint and not sufficient for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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: 'Extract direct answer to a question from unstructured source document/text.' This clearly identifies the tool as extractive question-answering, distinct from the sibling Cortex tools (summarize, sentiment, translate) by its focus on returning a direct answer rather than a transformation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use this when you need a direct answer rather than a summary' or compare with siblings like snowflake_cortex_summarize or snowflake_cortex_search. The context is implied but not stated, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate use case from the name and description alone.

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