snowflake_list_secrets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it lists secrets, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether results are scoped by the current database/schema, whether the pattern parameter filters by name, or whether any sensitive data is masked. It also doesn't mention authentication requirements or potential side effects. The lack of any behavioral details beyond the basic listing leaves the agent underinformed.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it omits important parameter context, that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness/structure issue. The sentence is efficient and easy to parse, with no redundant filler.

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 with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what the pattern parameter does, how to scope with database/schema_name, or what the output (though an output schema exists, it's not visible here) contains. For a listing tool with filtering capabilities, the lack of parameter guidance and usage context makes it inadequate for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 input schema has three optional parameters (pattern, database, schema_name) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention any of these parameters or their intended meaning. An agent has no idea what 'pattern' refers to (e.g., a regex for secret names?), or how database and schema_name affect the scope of listing. The description fails completely to clarify parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess.

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) and the resource (security secrets stored in Snowflake), with examples of what counts as secrets (API keys, OAuth credentials). It is distinct from sibling tools like snowflake_describe_secret (which targets a single secret) and other list tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and specific enough for an agent to know what it does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as snowflake_describe_secret for retrieving a specific secret or snowflake_list_integrations for integration objects. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring appropriate privileges or that it might list only secrets in the current context unless database/schema are specified. The agent is left to infer the usage context without any explicit conditions or exclusions.

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