Snowflake List Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds that results include row counts and bytes, but that is essentially return-value information also carried by the output schema; no auth, cost, or pagination behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and scope come first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be restated, but with three fully undocumented parameters, no usage guidance, and no sibling routing, the definition is only minimally adequate for a listing tool in a very large tool set.

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% for all three parameters. The phrase 'in a database schema' loosely implies the database and schema_name params, but the pattern parameter is never explained, leaving an undocumented filtering argument to guesswork.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (tables) scoped to a database schema, plus the returned metrics (row counts and bytes). It is distinguishable from snowflake_list_views and snowflake_list_iceberg_tables by resource, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. which database/schema defaults apply), and no routing to alternatives such as snowflake_describe_table or snowflake_list_views. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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