list_cas_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description itself does not add behavioral context beyond the action of listing; it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. Given the annotations cover the core safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear and concise.

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 list operation with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description fully captures the tool's functionality. The presence of an output schema is mentioned in context but not detailed, which is not a deficiency for such a straightforward listing tool.

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 confirms an empty object. As per calibration, a baseline of 4 is warranted when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to explain any parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'available CAS servers' and clarifies the context 'on the Viya environment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_compute_contexts or list_caslibs, which target different object types. It is not a tautology since it adds 'available' and the environment scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_compute_contexts or list_caslibs. It lacks any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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