snowflake_list_network_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'List' which implies read-only, but does not explain any details such as whether the result is fully materialized, if there is pagination, or if the pattern parameter filters results. No side effects or permissions are mentioned. The description is too sparse to be behaviorally transparent.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no waste. However, it is arguably too terse, which hurts other dimensions, but structurally it is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the tool has three optional parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how to use them. It does not. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity. An agent would need to guess at parameter behavior, making the description insufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (pattern, database, schema_name). The description does not hint at how these parameters influence the listing, their formats, or defaults. Since the schema offers no descriptions and the description adds none, an agent has no clue about parameter semantics.

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 rules' with a scope of 'database or schema.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like snowflake_list_network_policies or snowflake_describe_network_rule, which could lead to confusion, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description gives no hint that snowflake_describe_network_rule might be better for inspecting a single rule, or that snowflake_list_network_policies is for a different object type. An agent is left to infer usage.

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