sap.capability.describeRetrieve a capability's exact input schema and schema hash before invoking it to validate inputs and avoid mismatches.
Return the exact input schema and schema hash for one capability before invoking it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| includeOutputSchema | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow context (use before invoking), but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's action and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 introspection tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description tells what is returned (input schema and hash) and when to use it. However, it leaves the includeOutputSchema parameter unexplained and does not clarify the purpose of the returned hash, leaving a gap for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies a 'name' parameter via 'for one capability', but completely omits any explanation of includeOutputSchema or its default behavior. The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 (Return) and resource (exact input schema and schema hash for one capability). The phrase 'for one capability' and 'before invoking it' distinguishes it from sibling tools that search for capabilities or invoke them.
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 clearly states when to use: 'before invoking it', implying this is a pre-invocation validation step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like sap.capability.search or explain when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.