Sa Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, that 'fetch' writes a file to the local report folder (a side effect), whether the PXE path requires access rights, or what happens on an invalid path. For a tool whose second mode has filesystem side effects, this is a meaningful 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the two verbs first and the file-type examples in a compact parenthetical. No filler sentences and nothing wasted.

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 return values need no explanation, and both parameters are schema-documented with defaults. Still, with no annotations and a sibling named 'sa_file', the description leaves the agent without the routing and safety context needed to choose and call this tool confidently.

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 100%, so both 'path' and 'fetch' are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds the enumeration of file categories that clarifies what kinds of paths are meaningful, but contributes no syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema.

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 pair ('List or download') and a specific resource ('files SAStudio4 wrote'), with concrete examples of what those files are (DataExport CSV/profile, images, state .xml, records). However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling 'sa_file', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 tool versus 'sa_file', 'sa_read', 'sa_results', or 'sa_state'. The description implies a listing/download role but never names an alternative or a condition that selects this tool, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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