list_compute_columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds the behavioral detail about the reusable per-user compute session, which is useful for understanding execution environment. No contradictions; no additional disclosure needed for a simple read-only tool.

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: the first states the primary purpose, the second provides execution context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action, and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 rich schema (100% parameter coverage), strong annotations (read-only/idempotent), and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential operation and compute-session context. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema's 'limit' and 'start' parameters already capture that, and output schema handles 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 100%, with each parameter (limit, start, table_name, filter_name, library_name, compute_context_name) clearly described. The tool description does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 per the rubric.

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 clearly states the action: 'List the columns of a table in a SAS library within a compute context.' This identifies the specific resource (table columns), the scope (compute context), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_compute_tables or get_castable_columns.

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 adds context with 'Runs in the reusable per-user compute session for the context,' which helps the agent understand when this tool is appropriate (compute sessions) and implies it is not for CAS tables. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a read-only list operation.

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