sas9_libraries

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool performs a sign-on against the SAS 9 server using the active Viya connection's sign-on code, that the sign-on log is deliberately never shown, and that it creates remote libname assignments (engine REMOTE). That is meaningful side-effect and secret-handling context for a tool annotated readOnlyHint=false. It still does not say what the returned listing looks like or whether prior assignments persist.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and mechanism, then the operation sequence, then the `refresh` modifier — each clause carries information. The density of SAS-specific jargon and backtick fragments (``libname X server=… slibref=X``) makes it slower to parse than necessary but nothing is filler.

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 that signs on, mutates the remote session with libname assignments, and then lists results, the description covers the mechanics but leaves the `connection` parameter and the shape of the returned library list unexplained (no output schema exists). It is adequate to call the tool, but an agent cannot predict the outcome format.

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 carry the burden. It explains `refresh` well ('sign on again'), but `connection` is never mentioned in the description despite being a parameter, leaving an agent to guess whether it selects the Viya connection, the SAS 9 server, or something else.

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 resource and mechanism: SAS 9 libraries reached through SAS/CONNECT, with the sign-on, remote libname assignment, and listing steps spelled out. It never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like sas_libraries or cas_caslibs, so an agent still has to infer which library-listing tool applies.

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?

The only when-to-use signal is the note that `refresh` means 'sign on again', which implies using it after the SAS 9 sign-on has gone stale. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over sas_libraries, cas_caslibs, or sas_sources, and no prerequisites are given beyond the implicit need for an active Viya connection.

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