snowflake_describe_procedure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals the output fields but does not mention side effects, read-only status, or required permissions, which is a notable gap for a describe operation.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and key outputs. It is efficient with no redundant words or filler.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks critical context such as when to use it, parameter formatting, and safety implications. For a simple describe tool, it should at least mention the relationship to describe_function or provide usage hints, making it incomplete.

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 adds no information about the parameters. The required procedure_signature is not explained in terms of format or constraints, and database and schema_name are left entirely ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 identifies the resource (procedure) and the specific information returned (signature, return type, language, definition body). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from similar tools like describe_function by explicitly stating 'procedure'.

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 such as describe_function, list_procedures, or how to construct the required procedure_signature. The description only states what it does without any context for selection.

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