list_sas_files

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful context about the tool's role in verifying actual output locations on the server filesystem. It does not contradict the annotations and gives enough behavioral framing for a read-only list operation.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The only notable gap is the lack of path specification details, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for describing return values.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter's expected format, whether it is absolute/relative, or any constraints. Saying 'directory on the SAS server's filesystem' is only minimally helpful; the description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a directory on the SAS server's filesystem'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like list_libraries and list_datasets, which operate on SAS logical structures rather than the filesystem. It also connects the tool to a concrete workflow: confirming where a step wrote output before downloading.

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 second sentence gives a clear use case: 'Use it to confirm where a step actually wrote its output before downloading.' This provides context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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