run_sas_tests

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: assertions are returned as pass/fail results along with log triage, and the assertion macro library is available. However, annotations provide no safety profile (all hints false), and the description does not address side effects, session state, error behavior, or whether execution is isolated.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose and return behavior, and the macro list is useful despite being somewhat lengthy. Every element earns its place, though the macro enumeration could be trimmed or summarized without much loss.

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 an output schema present, the return values do not need full explanation in the description. The description is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool: it covers purpose, available macros, and the intended validation use case. Minor gaps remain around `include_log` and interaction with session state, but these are not blocking.

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 compensate. It implicitly clarifies that `code` holds SAS code with assertions, but `include_log` is never mentioned or explained. The description adds meaning for only one of the two parameters and leaves the boolean parameter's behavior to inference.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Run SAS code' with the assertion macro library available, and states the distinct return of assertion pass/fail results alongside log triage. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like run_sas, which lacks the assertion-specific output.

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 gives clear context: 'Use this to validate code you have written.' It lists the available assertion macros, so an agent knows what kinds of validation are supported. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name run_sas as the alternative for plain execution, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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