snowflake_list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any potential performance implications, or what the pattern parameter does. It also does not clarify whether it returns a list, a count, or any other format. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to be a simple read operation.

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 no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and scope, achieving efficiency 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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits any mention of the 'pattern' parameter, which is a key aspect of its functionality. It also does not provide any context about the return format, pagination, or required prerequisites (e.g., role permissions). While an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool that accepts a filtering parameter, leaving the agent under-informed about how to use it 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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'pattern' with zero description coverage, yet the description does not explain the meaning or usage of this parameter. The description entirely ignores the pattern, leaving the agent to guess what filtering capabilities are available. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description must compensate but fails to do so, earning a low score.

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 clear action (List), a specific resource (databases), and a scoping condition (accessible to the current role). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like snowflake_list_schemas or snowflake_list_tables by explicitly naming the resource type, making it unambiguous which list tool to select.

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 implies usage when the agent needs to enumerate databases accessible to the current role, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention that other list tools exist or when to prefer those, so the guidance is minimal and left to inference.

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