sas_viya_test

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: it lists compute contexts and, importantly, that it starts no SAS session. That non-obvious side-effect disclosure is exactly what annotations cannot convey. It stops short of 5 by not stating auth prerequisites or what happens when not signed in.

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 tightly written sentence with the scope front-loaded and a parenthetical that adds the key constraint. Every clause earns its place with zero padding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only test tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the non-obvious no-session behavior, and the return shape ('lists the compute contexts'). It is essentially complete; only auth/prerequisite context could be added.

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 and the baseline is 4. No parameter syntax or format needs documenting.

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 (check) and resource (SAS Viya sign-in and compute context), then narrows it with 'lists the compute contexts; starts no SAS session.' That makes the tool's actual output concrete rather than tautological. It does not name any sibling (e.g. sas_viya_state or sas_viya_sign_in) to differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'starts no SAS session' implies this is a lightweight diagnostic check rather than the session-starting sign_in tool, giving implied usage. However, it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use condition against the four sibling sas_viya_* tools.

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