viya_files_connection

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it works without signing in or starting a session, which is a non-obvious side-effect guarantee. It stops short of saying what is returned (connection identity, status, or null when absent), which for a getter is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 compact sentence with no padding; the parenthetical about files belonging to a connection adds context efficiently. It is slightly awkwardly front-loaded (no leading verb), but nothing is wasted.

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 getter with no output schema, the description should at minimum state what comes back (the active connection object, its name, or emptiness). That return-value question is left open, though the low complexity keeps the gap modest.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly signals the no-argument nature through its phrasing.

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 (the active SAS Viya connection) and hints that files on Viya belong to one, but it is a noun phrase with no verb — it never explicitly says whether it retrieves, reports, or verifies the connection. An agent can guess it is a read of current connection state, but it is not stated outright and no sibling is named to distinguish it from sas_viya_state, connections_state, or sas_connections_state.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the many sibling connection/state tools (connections_state, sas_viya_state, sas_connections_state, use_connection). The clause 'without signing in or starting a session' implies a safe context, but the agent must infer when this is preferable to alternatives.

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