sas_query

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true by disclosing non-obvious mechanics: statements are wrapped (proc sql; … quit;), text starting with proc / data / % runs as plain SAS code, write statements outside WORK/CASUSER are intercepted with needs_confirmation and routed to sas_execute, and pushdown returns the SingleStore payload with a verdict. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the following parameter notes are dense but each earns its place by disclosing a distinct behavior. The code-fenced parameter formatting is slightly heavy versus the payload it delivers, but there is little outright waste.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation depth beyond readOnlyHint, the behavioral picture is solid (wrapping, write interception, pushdown, history) and some return values are hinted at (needs_confirmation, verdict). It is nonetheless incomplete: six parameters are unexplained and the return shape is only partially implied.

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 param burden. It defines the most critical param well (language: procsql, fedsql, cas — values absent from the schema) plus pushdown and history, but tab, file, tab_id, library, options and max_rows remain completely undocumented in either place.

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 verb and resource ('Run one statement from the SQL Editor') and immediately scopes it to PROC SQL / FedSQL over SAS libraries or FedSQL over caslibs, which separates it from generic SQL runners. It never names the neighbouring tools (sas_execute, sql_editor_execute, run_sql), so the differentiation is by modality rather than by explicit contrast.

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?

The description implies usage through the needs_confirmation flow (writes are deferred to sas_execute) and through the history/pushdown switches, so an agent can infer intent. However it never states explicitly when to pick this over sas_execute or sql_editor_execute, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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