sas_columns

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read. The description's added value is the field list, which effectively documents the return shape in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about behavior on a missing table/library, connection requirements, or whether an inactive connection is auto-activated.

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 fragment with zero filler; the returned fields are listed efficiently. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, reading as a label rather than a complete instruction.

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?

With no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and no annotation detail beyond read-only, the definition leaves the agent guessing about connection handling and error behavior. For a simple introspection call this is minimal but not sufficient to call reliably.

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 parameter meaning, but it only implies that a table (and implicitly a library) is needed. The third parameter, "connection", is never mentioned, and the library/table distinction in the SAS model is left unexplained for an agent unfamiliar with it.

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?

"Columns of one SAS table" states the resource and the scope (one table), and the enumerated fields (name, type, length, format, label) tell the agent exactly what comes back. It is distinguishable from sas_tables and cas_columns by the SAS-table targeting, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus sas_lookup_columns, cas_columns, or security_columns, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing an active connection before listing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the word "one SAS table."

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