snowflake_describe_alert

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned (condition SQL, action SQL, etc.) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, permission requirements, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the alert does not exist). This is a significant gap for a tool that may be used in varied contexts.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than concise clarity. It conveys the core purpose but omits details that would be valuable for correct usage, making it acceptable but not 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 has three parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage conditions, or behavioral aspects. While an output schema exists, the description does not reference it, and the agent is left without sufficient guidance to ensure correct invocation, especially for a describe operation that may require precise specification of the alert.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no value to the parameters. It does not explain the role of alert_name, database, or schema_name, nor how they relate to identifying the alert. The only hint is that the tool describes an alert, but the description does not clarify how to specify which alert. This leaves an agent with little understanding of the required inputs beyond the schema's structural constraints.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Describe alert...' and lists specific components (condition SQL, action SQL, schedule, warehouse). This is distinct from sibling describe tools (e.g., describe_table, describe_warehouse) because it explicitly targets alerts and their configuration aspects, though it does not mention the alert name as a parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or why you would choose this over something like snowflake_list_alerts or snowflake_describe_task. The intended usage is only implicit from the name and the resource type, so an agent lacks explicit context for selection.

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