sas_viya_test

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

readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is safe, and the description usefully adds two traits beyond that: it starts no SAS session, and it reuses the MCP server's or CLI's existing sign-in when no dedicated one exists. That is real auth/behavior disclosure, though nothing is said about what a failed check looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, with no filler. The second sentence's phrasing ('if there's no own one') is slightly awkward but costs almost nothing.

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 output schema, the description does state the salient return content (compute contexts are listed) and the key side-effect guarantee (no SAS session started). The only real omission is what the sign-in check reports and what 'name' does.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'name', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It is unclear whether 'name' selects the Viya connection, the compute context, or something else, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('Check a SAS Viya connection's sign-in and compute context') and sharpens scope with the parenthetical that it lists compute contexts and starts no SAS session, which separates it from sas_viya_sign_in and sas_query. It never names a sibling outright, 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?

Usage is implied ('check a connection') but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus near-neighbors like connection_test, sas_viya_state, or sas_viya_sign_in. The note about reusing an existing sign-in is behavioral context, not routing guidance.

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