snowflake_list_iceberg_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it lists tables but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, error conditions, or how scope filtering behaves (e.g., whether database and schema are mutually exclusive or hierarchical). The agent is left guessing about the operational semantics.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No filler words, objective and directly to the point.

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 simple listing tool with all-optional parameters and an output schema (which may describe return format), the description is minimally adequate but omits critical details like pattern usage, scope precedence, and expected output structure. It gives a high-level idea but not enough for confident invocation without additional probing.

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% for the three parameters. The description hints at 'database or schema' as scope but does not explain the 'pattern' parameter at all, nor does it clarify how the parameters interact (e.g., whether pattern is a filter or a name pattern). With 0% coverage, the description needed to compensate but only partially did.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('Apache Iceberg tables'), with an explicit scope ('account, database, or schema'). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like snowflake_list_tables (regular tables) and snowflake_list_views, which are clearly different resource types.

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 the tool is for Iceberg tables specifically, which hints at when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it (e.g., 'for non-Iceberg tables, use snowflake_list_tables'). No guidance on scope selection or parameter precedence is provided.

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