snowflake_get_pipe_status

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 mentions what is returned but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether special permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. It does not disclose side effects or constraints beyond the basic status retrieval.

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. It front-loads the purpose and the key returned data, making it immediately scannable. This is appropriately concise for a status-check 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?

Given the low complexity of a status-check operation and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks edge-case handling (e.g., pipe not found), required permissions, and any linkage to related pipe-management tools. It does not cover usage context beyond the bare query.

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 should compensate, but it mentions none of the parameters (pipe_name, database, schema_name) or their meaning. It does not explain how these parameters are used or how they affect the query. The description adds no value beyond the schema field names.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('Snowpipe'), and the type of information returned ('pending file count, last ingested timestamp'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'snowflake_describe_pipe' (likely metadata) and 'snowflake_list_pipes' (listing), though it doesn't explicitly name them for contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snowflake_describe_pipe or snowflake_list_pipes. The description implies a specific use case but does not provide explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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