sas_sources

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it starts no session, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't describe return values, latency, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information. It could be slightly clearer, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description provides minimal but adequate context. However, for a status-check tool in a crowded sibling environment, it should clarify how it differs from similar tools like sas_viya_state or sas_viya_test.

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?

With zero parameters, parameter semantics are not applicable, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 a status check for SAS Viya sign-in and setup in the context of SAS libraries/caslibs sources, and clarifies it does not start a session. However, the purpose is muddled by awkward phrasing ('Whether SAS Viya is set up and signed in'), and it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like sas_viya_state or sas_viya_test.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sas_viya_state or sas_viya_test. The only hint is 'starts no session,' which implies it's a lightweight check, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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