list_compute_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by noting it 'Runs in the reusable per-user compute session for the context,' which explains the execution environment beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential distinctions and context. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, and execution environment. It does not need to explain return values or parameters because the schema and output schema already capture those details. This is a complete description for a 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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions including examples like 'WORK' and 'SASHELP'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond referencing WORK as a libref, which is already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's function: 'List the tables in a SAS library within a compute context.' It specifies the resource type (SAS/Compute tables) and explicitly distinguishes from in-memory CAS tables by referencing list_castables, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides an explicit alternative ('see list_castables') and clarifies the distinction between SAS/Compute and CAS tables. This direct when-not guidance helps the agent choose the correct tool. The mention of the reusable per-user compute session further contextualizes usage.

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