sas_libraries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context by explaining where the libraries come from (compute context + startup code) and what fields are exposed, but says nothing about the refresh behavior or return shape.

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?

The single sentence is compact and front-loads the resource and scope. It is slightly dense with the parenthetical SingleStore clause, but there is little wasted text.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the returned fields adequately. However it omits any explanation of the one parameter's effect and the output/pagination behavior, leaving gaps 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?

There is one parameter (refresh, default false) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it provides no information on what refreshing does or when to set 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?

The description states the specific resource (SAS libraries) and its scope (the Workspace's SAS Compute session), plus the fields it returns (engine, path, SingleStore database). It is clear about what is being surfaced, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' and only implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings such as sas_tables and sas_columns.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like sas_tables, sas_columns, or sas_sources, nor any prerequisites or context conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and resource noun.

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