Snowflake Sample Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only extra claim ('default 10 rows') is already in the schema default, so it adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.

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 the return shape need not be described. Still, the heavy overlap with snowflake_inspect_table_with_sample is unaddressed and the required table_name identifier format is left ambiguous, leaving gaps for an agent choosing between sibling tools.

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 carries the burden. It notes the sample_size default of 10 but says nothing about table_name format (e.g. fully qualified DATABASE.SCHEMA.TABLE), case sensitivity, or any constraint on sample_size.

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 and resource: 'Preview sample rows from a table', with the row count scoped. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling snowflake_inspect_table_with_sample, nor from snowflake_query, which could also return sample rows.

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 on when to use this versus the near-duplicate snowflake_inspect_table_with_sample or snowflake_profile_table. No prerequisites (e.g. warehouse/role context) or usage trigger is given.

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