snowflake_list_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List views' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about whether it returns metadata, paginates, requires privileges, or how errors are handled. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 or redundancy. It gets straight to the point. It could add more detail without becoming verbose, but as it stands, it is appropriately concise and structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema that documents the return structure, the description is too thin for a tool with three optional parameters and no annotations. It doesn't explain how to use database/schema to scope the listing or what pattern does. A simple list tool still benefits from clarifying parameter semantics, so this is 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% — the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (pattern, database, schema_name). It mentions 'database schema' generically but doesn't explain that these optional parameters narrow the scope or that pattern filters by view name. Since the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, it scores very low.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('views') and specifies the context ('in a database schema'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings that list other objects like tables or schemas. However, it is terse and doesn't mention the optional pattern filtering, so it's not fully explicit about scope. It earns a 4 because the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 (e.g., list_tables, describe_view). It doesn't clarify whether it's for exploration, introspection, or filtering, and doesn't state any prerequisites like needing a specific database/schema context. The description provides no direction for an agent to decide between this and sibling listing tools.

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