snowflake_describe_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool describes user properties, but does not mention whether it is read-only, idempotent, requires specific privileges, or how it behaves for non-existent users. The read-only nature is implied by 'describe' but not explicitly disclosed, and there is no information about error handling or side effects.

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 verb and resource. It avoids verbosity and includes the key properties. There is no wasted text, though it lacks structured formatting like bullet points or context sections. Overall, it is efficient and appropriately sized for a simple describe tool.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are defined, partially relieving the description. The description lists key properties covered, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error conditions, required privileges, or any behavioral caveats. For a tool with no annotations and a single input, this is a minimal but acceptable level of completeness.

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 for the undocumented 'user_name' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, nor does it explain how the parameter is used, its format, or any constraints. The only information comes from the schema's 'User Name' title, which provides minimal meaning. This is a significant gap.

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') and resource ('user'), and lists the exact properties covered (email, disabled status, default warehouse/role). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like snowflake_list_users (which lists users) and snowflake_describe_role (which describes a role). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool (like snowflake_list_grants_to_user or snowflake_describe_role) would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and typical describe semantics.

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