snowflake_describe_warehouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Describes' details and running state, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly say it is non-mutating, whether the warehouse must exist, or what error handling looks like. It adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the name and verb imply, so it is adequate but not rich. A 3 reflects that it is clear but under-discloses.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the additional detail about 'running state' is useful without being verbose. Every word earns its place.

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 introspection tool with one parameter and an output schema (which we assume exists given the tool definition), the description covers the essential function. It does not explain the output format, but that is handled by the output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the sibling context makes the purpose unambiguous. A 4 is given because it could mention prerequisites (e.g., warehouse existence) but that is minor.

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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'a specific virtual warehouse' maps directly to the warehouse_name parameter, giving it contextual meaning (as opposed to listing all warehouses). However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's format, constraints, or default behavior, and the schema provides only the type. The description adds some value but not enough to warrant a higher score; a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('a specific virtual warehouse'), and explicitly mentions 'running state' which adds precision. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_warehouses (which enumerates), create/drop/resume/suspend/resize (which modify), and get_warehouse_load_history (which focuses on historical load). An agent can immediately understand this is the introspection tool for a single warehouse.

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 implies usage for inspecting a single warehouse's configuration and state, which is distinct from listing all warehouses. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need load history), but the context is clear. No exclusions are mentioned, so this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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