snowflake_list_password_policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the scope ('account or database') but does not state what the tool returns (though output schema exists), whether it lists all policies or only those visible to the current role, or any effects of the optional parameters. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no fluff, though it sacrifices substance for brevity. Structure is acceptable, but the lack of detail prevents a higher 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?

For a simple list tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the optional parameters or how to use them for filtering, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'account or database' (e.g., whether database requires schema). While an output schema exists so return format is not needed, the absence of parameter explanations and usage context leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (pattern, database, schema_name). The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters do, how they interact, or what formats are expected. The description fails entirely to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('password security policies'), and scope ('in the account or database'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'snowflake_describe_password_policy' by the list-versus-describe orientation, but it does not explicitly name the alternative. It is not a tautology and gives a clear action.

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 snowflake_describe_password_policy or other list tools. It does not mention that 'pattern' filters by name or that database/schema scope the listing. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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