snowflake_sample_table

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. It implies a read-only operation and states the default row count, but reveals nothing about sampling method (random vs. ordered), whether rows are deterministic, row limits, or what the returned shape looks like. For an unannotated tool this is a thin disclosure.

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 default behavior are stated first. It borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, but the prose is efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, which helps with return values. However, with 0% parameter schema coverage and no annotations, the description should explain table_name qualification and sampling semantics. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward preview tool but leaves the key parameter undocumented.

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, but it only reaffirms the sample_size default of 10. It does not clarify what table_name should be (e.g., fully qualified vs. schema-qualified) or any bounds/behavior for sample_size. The description adds almost nothing beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 ('Preview') with a clear resource ('sample rows from a table') and states the default of 10 rows. It conveys the read-only intent and differentiates from data-definition siblings, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar read tools like snowflake_query or snowflake_inspect_table_with_sample.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snowflake_query or snowflake_inspect_table_with_sample. There are no exclusions, no recommended context, and no hints about when sampling is preferable to a full query.

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