sas_library_code

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that — the data source (dictionary.libnames), the attributes carried into the statement (engine, path, database, user), and a security-relevant guarantee that passwords are emitted as placeholders rather than real values. What it does not say is whether the generated statement is executed or merely returned as text, which matters for an agent deciding how to follow up.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the deliverable, with the parenthetical enumerating supported attributes and the password-masking rule. The double-backtick markup around the placeholder example is formatting noise, but there is no wasted prose.

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 generator with no output schema, the description does a fair job sketching the returned text (a LIBNAME statement with engine/path/database/user and a masked password). It falls short on the unexplained `connection` parameter and on whether output is meant to be executed by the agent, leaving a real gap for a two-parameter tool.

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% for both parameters. The description implicitly clarifies `library` as the single target library, but the `connection` parameter — likely selecting which SAS session/connection to read dictionary.libnames from — is never mentioned at all and its meaning must be guessed from the sibling connection tools.

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 artifact — the LIBNAME statement for one SAS library — and its origin (dictionary.libnames), so an agent knows this generates DDL-like code rather than listing libraries. It never names the closely related siblings (sas_libraries, cas_caslib_code), so differentiation from them is only implied by the singular 'one SAS library'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to call this versus sas_libraries (which presumably enumerates them) or cas_caslib_code (the CAS analogue). The reader must infer from the name and the phrase 'for one SAS library' that this is a per-library code generator.

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