snowflake_describe_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns role properties and assigned grants, which conveys a read-only, descriptive nature. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., role existence), error conditions, or response complexity. The description is adequate but minimal, adding no detail beyond the basic returning of information.

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 states the core functionality without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 describe operation with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not elaborate on what specific properties or grant details are included, nor does it mention pagination or limits. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks some operational context (e.g., whether it returns grants for the role only or also inherited grants).

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 schema provides only a title 'Role Name' with no description. The tool description does not explicitly explain that role_name identifies the specific role to describe, nor does it add any context about name format, case sensitivity, or required privileges. Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, it adds minimal semantic value beyond the field name.

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') applied to the resource ('role') and names the two aspects covered: properties and assigned grants. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like snowflake_list_roles (which lists available roles) and snowflake_list_grants_to_role (which lists grants separately). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiable.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention snowflake_list_roles for discovering roles, nor snowflake_list_grants_to_role for grant details separately, nor any conditions that would select one over the other. The intended usage is only implied (describe a specific role), with no exclusions or context.

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