list_cas_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful safety signal, but no additional behavioral context is given (e.g., authentication requirements, whether only user-accessible servers are shown, or any side effects). It is not misleading but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of eight words. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is adequate to convey the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain the return format, but that is covered by the output schema. Slight gap: it doesn't clarify whether 'available' implies user-specific visibility, but this is a minor omission.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed, matching the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CAS servers') within a scope ('on the Viya environment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_caslibs and list_castables. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when CAS server discovery is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_caslibs or list_castables. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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