snowflake_get_query_operator_stats

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 implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any prerequisites (e.g., query must be in history, required permissions). It also does not describe the return payload, though an output schema exists.

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 declarative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, then adds the constraint. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, it lacks any usage guidance about when to prefer this over related query-inspection tools, and it does not mention potential limitations or prerequisites beyond 'past Query ID'. This is a functional but incomplete description.

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 only parameter, query_id, has zero schema description coverage. The description adds essential semantics by stating it must be a 'past Query ID', which is crucial for correct invocation. However, it does not elaborate on the format or source of the ID beyond that, leaving room for ambiguity in how to obtain it.

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 (retrieve), the object (operator-level execution statistics and profiling data), and the context (for a past Query ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snowflake_get_query_plan and snowflake_get_query_history, which focus on different aspects.

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 such as snowflake_get_query_plan or snowflake_get_query_history. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or when it is not, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name and description.

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