snowflake_describe_dynamic_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Describe', and lists the output aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or prerequisites. The description adds some value by specifying the returned fields, but is limited.

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 that front-loads the action and lists the key output attributes. It is not verbose, and every part contributes to conveying what the tool does. It could be slightly more detailed, but it is appropriately sized for the simple operation.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, nor does it provide usage guidance or behavioral context. The existence of an output schema covers the return values, but the input and selection criteria are missing. For a tool with such low schema coverage, more context is needed.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention database, table_name, or schema_name at all. The required parameter table_name is not described, and the optional parameters are not discussed. The description focuses on output, not input, providing no help for parameter usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Describe' and the resource 'dynamic table', and specifies four specific attributes (definition, target lag, warehouse, query text) that will be returned. This distinguishes it from generic describe_table and list_dynamic_tables, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_table or list_dynamic_tables. The name implies it's for dynamic tables, but the description doesn't state that this is the right tool for describing dynamic tables specifically, or when not to use it.

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