snowflake_inspect_table_with_sample

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 indicates the tool returns schema, row count, column types, and sample rows, which implies read-only behavior, but it never explicitly states this or any caveats (e.g., potential cost, limits on sample rows, or behavior for missing tables). The phrase 'in 1 call' adds a performance hint but does not address side effects or operational characteristics.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the composite nature and lists the outputs. There is no fluff or redundancy. It earns a high score for conciseness, though it could have included more detail without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the tool has 4 parameters with zero explanation. The description does not address how database and schema_name interact with the current session context, nor does it mention any limitations on sample_rows or error conditions. Given the availability of an output schema, the description should at least cover parameter usage, which it entirely omits. The tool is relatively simple but still incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 explain the parameters. It does not mention database, schema_name, table_name, or sample_rows at all. The description adds no value for parameter understanding; an agent cannot infer the meaning or default behavior of these fields (e.g., that database and schema_name default to null, implying current context).

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 what the tool does: 'Describe table schema, row count, column types, and preview sample rows in 1 call.' It identifies a specific composite operation with a verb ('describe/preview') and a resource ('table'). However, it does not name or distinguish from sibling tools like snowflake_describe_table or snowflake_sample_table, so it lacks explicit differentiation despite the 'composite recipe' tag.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this combines describe_table and sample_table, nor does it suggest circumstances (e.g., need both schema and sample data) that would favor this composite over separate calls. It is entirely silent on usage context.

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