snowflake_get_query_plan

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the query is not executed, which is the most important safety property. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors such as whether it requires a running warehouse, whether it reads only, or any limitations on query types. More context would be helpful.

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 sentence that packs in the action, resource, and the critical non-execution qualifier. Every word carries meaning, and the most important information (that it doesn't execute) is front-loaded. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one simple string parameter and an output schema (which presumably describes the returned plan structure), the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what it does and that it doesn't execute, but doesn't provide any workflow context, such as typical use cases (e.g., query optimization, debugging) or any prerequisites. The output schema likely covers the return format, so this gap is acceptable, but more context would improve 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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does not elaborate on the parameter at all—no format, examples, or constraints. The name 'query' is self-explanatory because the tool is about SQL queries, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 (generate), the resource (EXPLAIN execution plan), and the key qualifier ('without executing it'). This distinguishes it from the sibling snowflake_query tool that actually executes queries, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 phrase 'without executing it' implies when to use this tool (when you want to inspect a plan without running the query), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with snowflake_query is made, and there are no clear conditions or exclusions beyond the non-execution aspect.

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