Snowflake List Compute Pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it doesn't say whether results are filtered, scoped to the current database/account, whether all pools are returned or truncated, or anything about the pattern filter. A minimal restatement of the resource is all that is on offer.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is padded or redundant. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the brevity comes from omitting needed information rather than from disciplined editing.

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, has an output schema so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, which keeps it close to adequate. The unaddressed 'pattern' filter and the lack of any scope statement (account-wide vs. context-bound) leave meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 carries the full burden for the single 'pattern' parameter — and it says nothing about it. Whether 'pattern' is a SQL LIKE pattern, a regex, or a case-sensitive prefix filter is left entirely to guesswork. The bare parameter name is only marginally self-explanatory, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (SPCS compute pools), and expands the acronym so the agent knows this is Snowpark Container Services rather than a generic compute resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like snowflake_describe_compute_pool, snowflake_resume_compute_pool, or snowflake_suspend_compute_pool, but the verb-plus-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The agent must infer that 'list' means enumerate all pools and that describe/resume/suspend are different operations. For a tool with four close siblings in the compute-pool family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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