snowflake_list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description clearly implies a read-only operation (listing tables) and specifies that it returns row counts and bytes, which indicates a non-destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it disclose potential performance implications of listing many tables or whether there are any limitations. The basic behavior is transparent, but it lacks depth beyond the obvious.

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, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the core message. There is no filler or repetition. This is an excellent example of concise, focused tool documentation.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify parameter semantics, default behavior when parameters are omitted, or how the 'pattern' interacts with the other fields. Since the output schema is not described within the description, the agent cannot rely on the description for return structure beyond 'row counts and bytes.' Given the simplicity of the tool, some gaps are acceptable, but the ambiguous 'pattern' and lack of usage context make the description incomplete.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'database schema' but does not explain the three parameters: pattern, database, and schema_name. While database and schema_name are reasonably self-explanatory, 'pattern' is ambiguous and could mean a LIKE pattern, a regex, or something else. The description provides no additional meaning for these parameters, leaving the agent guessing.

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'), a resource ('tables'), and a clear scope ('in a database schema'), and adds what is returned ('row counts and bytes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snowflake_list_views or snowflake_list_sequences. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 such as snowflake_list_views, snowflake_describe_table, or snowflake_get_table_ddl. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over others. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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