snowflake_list_image_repositories

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. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-mutating, or free of side effects. Unlike the get_calls example, it adds no behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It earns a 3 because it has no unnecessary words and states the primary action, but it omits essential details that would make it more useful.

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 list tool with an output schema, the absence of usage guidelines and parameter explanations makes it incomplete. The description covers the basic action but fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly, especially with three optional parameters and no hints about common patterns or alternatives.

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 must compensate by explaining parameter usage, but it does not. The three parameters (pattern, database, schema_name) are not mentioned at all. While their names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides zero guidance on how they affect the query or their formats, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 'List OCI image repositories in Snowflake' clearly states the action (list) and target resource (OCI image repositories). It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling list tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative like get_calls did, so it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot tell when this tool is preferable to other listing tools such as list_iceberg_tables or list_tables without additional context.

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