snowflake_list_schemas

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. It states a read-only action ('List') which implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is non-destructive, or mention any permissions or session context requirements. For a simple listing operation, this is adequate, but it omits details like whether the result includes system schemas or respects visibility filters. The description provides baseline transparency but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no superfluous text or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (so return format is covered) and a simple purpose, the description leaves the pattern parameter unexplained and does not clarify the behavior of 'current active database' beyond a passing mention. Given the low schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool with the pattern parameter or to understand potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if no database is active).

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 explain the parameters. It only hints at the database parameter ('a specific database or the current active database') but completely omits the pattern parameter, leaving its purpose and format unknown. The database parameter is partially clarified (optional, defaults to active database), but the pattern parameter—likely a filter—is entirely undocumented. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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), the resource (schemas), and the scope (a specific database or the current active database). This distinguishes it from other listing tools like snowflake_list_tables or snowflake_list_views, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'List' and resource 'schemas' make the purpose unambiguous, but it could be slightly more precise about the pattern parameter's role.

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 usage context by mentioning 'a specific database or the current active database', which tells the agent the database parameter can be used to target a database or fall back to the session's active one. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar listing tools (e.g., snowflake_list_tables, snowflake_list_databases), nor does it specify any exclusions or alternatives. The lack of such routing leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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