snowflake_health_check

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, and return characteristics. The description only lists what is checked ('connection, active session, warehouse state, and credit consumption') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can trigger actions (like resuming a warehouse), or what the output structure is. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 efficiently lists the health-check targets. It is front-loaded with 'Composite recipe' to signal aggregation. However, it could use slightly more structure to clarify the output or usage context without becoming verbose. It's concise but not maximally informative.

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 tool's composite nature and the existence of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned health report contains or at least note common usage. It does not address potential prerequisites, cost implications, or the meaning of 'health check' beyond the list. Since it's a zero-parameter read-only-style tool, it is partially adequate, but the lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidance lowers 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. It correctly avoids redundant content, and the schema already fully covers the (empty) parameter list.

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 names a specific verb ('Run health check') and enumerates four distinct resources (connection, active session, warehouse state, credit consumption). This clearly delineates the tool's scope from the many sibling tools that operate on individual objects like tables or warehouses. It's unambiguous and distinct.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is described as a 'composite recipe' but does not specify contexts (e.g., initial troubleshooting, pre-upgrade checks) or contrast with dedicated tools like snowflake_get_current_context or snowflake_describe_warehouse. The agent is left to infer applicability.

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