snowflake_list_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention read-only nature, filtering behavior, pagination, permissions, or what happens when database/schema are omitted. It adds little beyond the tool name and does not contradict anything, but it is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. No fluff or redundancy, but it could have included a brief mention of the pattern parameter without becoming verbose. It is appropriately concise, so a high score is warranted.

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, the description omits critical context: the meaning of pattern, behavior when scope is unspecified, and how this differs from list_procedures or describe_function. The tool's complexity (3 optional params) and lack of schema coverage demand a more thorough explanation. The description is incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It alludes to 'database or schema' but does not explain the pattern parameter, how database/schema_name interact, or any syntax expectations. The agent is left to guess parameter semantics from names alone, which is risky for a 3-parameter tool.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'user-defined functions (UDFs)', and the scope 'in a database or schema'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools like snowflake_list_tables or snowflake_list_views by specifying UDFs, and from describe_function by indicating a list operation.

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 you need to list UDFs), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Without naming siblings like snowflake_list_procedures or describe_function, it leaves the selection to the agent's inference.

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