sas_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds relevant behavioral context by stating the tool diagnoses 'without connecting' and listing the diagnostic areas it inspects. There is no mutation implied and no contradiction with annotations. It does not describe output details, but an output schema exists to carry that burden.

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 compact and front-loaded: one dense sentence enumerates the diagnostic scope, and a short imperative sentence gives usage guidance. There is no filler, and every phrase adds distinctive information.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers scope and usage well: it names the diagnostic categories, says to run it first on connection failure, and clarifies it does not connect. The only notable gap is that the optional probe_network parameter is only implied rather than explicitly tied to the parameter name, but the schema and default mitigate this.

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 for the single probe_network parameter. The phrase 'network reachability' maps plausibly to probe_network, but the parameter is never named and its effect when set to false is left to inference. The schema's default helps, but the description adds only partial semantic value.

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 ('Diagnose') and a clear resource ('SASPy configuration'), then enumerates exactly what is checked: config file, connection method, Java runtime, .authinfo, ODA hostname, network reachability, and encoding. It also distinguishes itself from siblings with 'Run this first whenever a connection fails,' so an agent can separate it from run_sas or session_status.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Run this first whenever a connection fails.' It also clarifies that it operates 'without connecting,' which sets expectations for pre-connection diagnostics. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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