snowflake_describe_compute_pool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (instance family, min/max nodes, active nodes, state) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires prior existence of the pool. While 'describe' implies a read operation, the description does not make these behavioral traits explicit, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 zero waste. It states the action and the key output fields directly, information is immediately actionable, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 simple, one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main return values and is nearly complete. Minor omissions like explicit read-only status or error behavior are present, but the existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return formats. Overall, an agent can call this tool correctly with the available information.

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 0% and the description does not explain the pool_name parameter. Although the parameter name and tool purpose make its meaning inferable, the description fails to add any explicit semantic detail (e.g., format, case-sensitivity, or that it must be an existing pool). Low coverage requires the description to compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Describe') and resource ('compute pool'), and enumerates the exact attributes returned (instance family, min/max nodes, active nodes, state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_compute_pools (which enumerates pools) or resume/suspend_compute_pool (which modify state), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

Usage context is implied by the standard 'describe' pattern: when you need details of a specific pool, use this tool rather than listing all pools. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to list_compute_pools or other describe tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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