sas_connections_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that sign-in data comes from the stored token and requires no network call, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, but it does not cover other traits such as staleness or error conditions.

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?

Single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and return contents. The fragment style is slightly less structured than a full sentence, but it earns its place.

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 input schema, no output schema, and a simple read-only annotation, the description conveys what the tool returns and notes the local-token/no-network behavior. It is largely complete for invocation, though a clear verb and usage context would improve it.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics and the description need not add any. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Describes the resource (saved SAS Viya connections) and the contents returned (active connection, per-connection sign-in), but uses a noun phrase without a verb and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as connections_state or sas_viya_state.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of alternatives; the parenthetical 'from the stored token; no network' hints at a non-network state check but is not framed as usage criteria.

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