sas_classify

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a classification/analysis operation, so no contradiction. The description usefully discloses the classification criterion (write outside WORK/CASUSER), but omits what the output looks like or how the confirmation flag is returned.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so nothing is padded, but it is too terse to be front-loaded meaningfully and reads as a cryptic fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the classification returns (e.g., which statements need confirmation and in what form), and it does not. With 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 full burden and largely fails it. It only hints at 'language' and 'statements' and says nothing about the 'library' parameter's role or the expected statement format.

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 conveys that the tool classifies SAS statements by whether they require confirmation (writes outside WORK/CASUSER), which is a meaningful purpose. However, it is written as a sentence fragment with no explicit verb, and it does not differentiate from the similar sibling sql_editor_classify, leaving the exact operation ambiguous.

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?

It situates usage ('For "Run all" in a SAS language') but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative such as sql_editor_classify or workload_parse_statements. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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