Snowflake Describe Compute Pool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no statement about permissions required, whether the pool must exist, or failure behavior — and its field list is return-value information already carried by the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and the returned attributes with no filler. Nothing in it is wasted.

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 the description's field list is partly redundant with it), and annotations cover the read-only nature. The remaining gap is routing: nothing tells the agent to resolve pool_name via snowflake_list_compute_pools first, so the definition is adequate but not 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 0% for the single required parameter pool_name. The description does not explain the identifier's format, qualification, or case sensitivity, so it only marginally compensates; the parameter name itself is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at the baseline.

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?

States a clear verb (describe) plus resource (compute pool) and enumerates the attributes returned (instance family, min/max nodes, active nodes, state). This separates it from sibling mutators like snowflake_resume_compute_pool and snowflake_suspend_compute_pool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with snowflake_list_compute_pools.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. There is no indication of when to prefer this over snowflake_list_compute_pools (which would find the pool name first) or when a describe is warranted versus a direct resume/suspend call. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'describe'.

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