list_sas_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds value by mentioning the output contains access method and target server, which is useful context. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function and output, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place; it's tightly written and well-structured.

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 parameter-less tool with an output schema (present), the description fully covers purpose and usage. There is no missing information that would impede an agent from correctly deciding when to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0 params, the score is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'SAS configurations', and specifies the information returned (access method and target server). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like use_sas_config (which selects a config) and list_sas_files (which lists files).

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 provides clear usage context: 'Call this when connecting reports that a configuration must be chosen, or when the user mentions a specific SAS environment by name.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger conditions are concrete and actionable.

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