snowflake_list_streamlits

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it lists Streamlit applications, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it errors if filters are misapplied, whether it uses the current session context, or what the response format is. For a list operation, the behavior is predictable, but crucial scoping details (e.g., does it list all Streamlits account-wide or must database/schema be provided?) are missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core purpose in eight words. This is appropriately concise and well-structured 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 presence of three optional parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain how to filter, whether the parameters are globally applicable, or what the typical use case is. While the output schema may define return structure, the input semantics remain opaque, leaving a significant gap in the agent's ability to construct a valid call.

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%, meaning the input schema provides only parameter names (pattern, database, schema_name) without any explanatory text. The description does not mention these parameters or their meanings, so the agent has no way to know what 'pattern' filters on, whether database/schema are required, or what values are expected. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Streamlit applications') with the context 'hosted in Snowflake'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like snowflake_list_tables or snowflake_list_sequences, and pairs with snowflake_describe_streamlit as the listing counterpart. The purpose is unambiguous and cannot be mistaken for a different tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that snowflake_describe_streamlit could be used for details, nor does it explain when to supply the optional database/schema_name parameters or whether the tool can list across all scopes. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for decision-making.

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