viya_files_browse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: where browsing starts for each location, how the session/home fallback works, and what each entry carries (size, modified time, ref). It omits error behaviour and any listing-size limits, which keeps it from 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-loaded with the what and the why, then parameter detail in scoped clauses; the parenthetical asides and backticked literals keep it scannable. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information, with only minor repetition across the kind/show_all and location explanations.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents (subfolders, files, size, modified time, ref) and the location-dependent starting point well enough to call it correctly. Only the ``path`` argument and failure cases remain underspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it defines the kind modes (default sql vs notebook), what show_all changes, and the two mutually distinct location values with their start directories. The one soft spot is ``path``, which is only implied by "List a folder" rather than stated.

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 ("List a folder on SAS Viya") plus the exact consumer context (SQL Editor's Open / Save as) and the item types returned (subfolders, .sql/.sas, optionally .ipynb or every file). An agent can distinguish this from generic browse siblings like load_file_browse or files_browse without opening any 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?

The description makes the workflow context explicit and names the downstream tools that consume the returned ``ref`` (sql_editor_open_file / _save_file), which tells the agent when this tool is the right predecessor. It stops short of naming when to prefer a different browse sibling or listing any exclusion.

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