sas_viya_state

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is low. It adds the useful fact that sign-in status is among the returned information, but says nothing about whether a prior sign-in is required or what happens when unauthenticated.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the resource. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries most of the explanatory load, and it omits any indication of the return shape (what settings, what status values) or dependency on a prior sign-in. It is adequate to identify the tool but leaves real gaps.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource (SAS Viya) and the specific information returned (settings and sign-in status), and the parenthetical scopes it to SAS cells in notebooks. It lacks an explicit verb and does little to distinguish itself from siblings such as sas_viya_test or sas_viya_sign_in, but the purpose is nonetheless clear.

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 statement of when to call this versus sas_viya_sign_in, sas_viya_sign_out, or sas_viya_test. The parenthetical hints at the applicable context (SAS cells in notebooks) but gives no explicit trigger or prerequisite for invocation.

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