snowflake_list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, safe to run, or that it requires an existing database/schema. It also does not mention potential errors, performance implications, or whether it returns a paginated result. The description only states what is listed, not how the tool behaves.

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, well-structured sentence that packs the core action, scope, and output details without any waste. Every word adds value: the verb, the object, the scope, and the specific fields returned. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It omits how pattern works, whether database and schema_name are required together or individually, and any examples or edge cases. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description does not explain how to correctly invoke the tool with the given parameters. An agent would struggle to craft a proper call without additional context.

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 by explaining parameters. It hints that tasks are listed 'in a database or schema', which maps to the database and schema_name parameters, but it does not explain the pattern parameter (likely a LIKE filter). No parameter is described explicitly, leaving the agent to guess what 'pattern' means and how the scoping works. This is insufficient given the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 tool lists tasks, scoped to a database or schema, and specifies the included fields (schedule, state, predecessor). This verb+resource+scope pattern distinguishes it from other list_* siblings, all of which target different object types. The description leaves no ambiguity about what this tool 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?

No usage context is provided beyond the basic action. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snowflake_describe_task, snowflake_list_sequences, or other list operations. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description implies it lists tasks but does not help the agent decide when to select it.

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