snowflake_list_network_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, output format, pagination, or the effect of the pattern parameter. There is no mention of side effects, prerequisites, or constraints.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. It is not verbose and is appropriately brief for a simple listing tool. However, it lacks any additional structural elements that could enhance clarity, earning a high but not perfect score.

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 description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not explain the pattern parameter, and there is no mention of any filtering behavior or output expectations. While an output schema exists, the description still omits essential context about how the list is produced and how to use the parameter effectively.

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 description does not explain the single 'pattern' parameter. The schema shows an optional string with a null default, but there is no description of what pattern filters on (e.g., name pattern). With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's meaning.

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' and the resource 'network policies' within the account scope. It is distinct from sibling list_* tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly differentiate from describe_network_policy or list_network_rules. The purpose is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention describe_network_policy for details or list_network_rules for related resources. The only implied usage is that it lists network policies, with no exclusions or context.

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