Snowflake Describe Secret

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 genuinely useful non-annotation context: the operation deliberately does not expose the secret value, which matters for a security-sensitive object. It stops short of noting permission requirements or error behavior when the secret does not exist.

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 with no filler; every clause (metadata, type values, owner, no value exposure) contributes distinct information.

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-value detail is not required, and for a simple describe tool the description covers purpose, scope, and the key security caveat. The only real gap is parameter guidance, which is partly mitigated by self-evident parameter names.

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% across three parameters (database, schema_name, secret_name), so the description is expected to compensate and does not: it never mentions any parameter, its optional/default-null status, or the fully-qualified-name conventions. The names are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but no added meaning is provided.

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 specific verb (Describe) and resource (secret) and enumerates the returned metadata: type with its allowed values (GENERIC_STRING, OAUTH2) and owner. The added 'without exposing secret value' clause cleanly separates it from snowflake_list_secrets and from any tool that would retrieve the secret's contents.

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 is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it inspects a single secret and that snowflake_list_secrets finds the name first, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisite about needing database/schema context, and no note on when describing is preferable to listing.

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