snowflake_list_compute_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists compute pools, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or output structure. There is no contradiction, but the behavioral context is minimal.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the SPCS clarification adds value without verbosity. Structure is excellent for its brevity.

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 no annotations and minimal description, the context is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the 'pattern' parameter, whether the operation is read-only (important for an agent's safety), or what the output schema contains. Though an output schema exists (per signals), the description still leaves the agent guessing about filtering and defaults.

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 input schema has one optional 'pattern' parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not mention it, so an agent has no idea what 'pattern' means—likely a filter, but it could be any pattern. The description adds nothing to clarify parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Snowpark Container Services (SPCS) compute pools'), clearly distinguishing it from other list tools for different resources (e.g., snowflake_list_sequences) and from describe/action tools for compute pools (snowflake_describe_compute_pool, snowflake_resume_compute_pool). The resource is named precisely with the SPCS abbreviation, making its scope 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a listing operation for compute pools, nor does it contrast with describe_compute_pool for details, or with suspend/resume for lifecycle management. An agent would need to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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