snowflake_describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output but does not mention that the operation is read-only, the need for any specific privileges, error behavior (e.g., failure if the table does not exist), or how missing schema/database parameters are resolved. For a describe operation, these are important expectations that are left unstated.

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 with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the core action and expected output. Every word contributes to clarity, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

The output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description lacks guidance on when to choose this over similar describe tools (e.g., iceberg) and does not clarify parameter dependencies. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that must pick between many sibling describe functions.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage. It only hints that table_name refers to a table or view, but does not elaborate on how database and schema_name parameters interact, whether table_name should be fully qualified, or the effect of leaving database/schema null. The description provides minimal added value over the raw schema.

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 action ('Describe') and the resource ('a table or view'), and specifies exactly what information is returned: column definitions, data types, nullability, and primary keys. This distinguishes it from sibling describe tools like snowflake_describe_iceberg_table (for iceberg tables) and snowflake_describe_database/schema (for different object types). The specificity is high and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, using snowflake_get_table_ddl for DDL statements or snowflake_describe_iceberg_table for iceberg tables. The context for selection is implied but never explicit, so an agent may not know which describe tool fits a given situation.

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