list_compute_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs in a reusable per-user compute session and inherits libraries from prior code execution, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits; for a read-only listing, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context. No redundant or unnecessary information. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has four parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient overall context: it lists libraries in a compute context, runs in a per-user session, and includes dynamically created ones. It does not mention prerequisites like the compute session being active, but overall it is complete enough for a list tool with pagination.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning the compute context name implicitly. Thus, it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra 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 clearly states the tool 'list the SAS libraries (librefs) assigned in a compute context', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_caslibs by specifying the compute context and mentioning session inheritance from prior execute_sas_code calls.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: in a reusable per-user compute session, and that it sees libraries created by prior execute_sas_code calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like list_caslibs.

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