viya_files_browse

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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral value: what is returned (subfolders, .sql/.sas files, size and modified time), how show_all widens scope, what location starts in (My Folder / Public; first lockdown path / session home), and the ref field consumers need. It does not cover ordering or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then scopes into location and output. The nested parenthetical about content/server defaults is dense and could be flatter, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 responsibly conveys the return shape (folders, files, size, modified time, ref). Combined with the location semantics it is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool; the only gap is the path parameter's precise meaning when supplied.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the param burden and mostly does: location's two values are fully explained with their starting points, and show_all is defined as 'every file'. The path parameter is only implied ('List a folder') rather than described, leaving one of three params thin.

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 (list) and resource (a folder on SAS Viya), and scopes it to the SQL Editor's Open/Save As flow, distinguishing it from generic filesystem siblings. It also names the downstream tools (sql_editor_open_file / _save_file) whose ref it supplies, so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames the context of use ('for the SQL Editor's Open / Save as') and explains the two location modes, which selects the right call. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing from siblings like files_browse or sql_editor_files and offers no when-not guidance, so it is strong context rather than full routing.

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