Export SAP Data

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., writing/overwriting files at the given filePath). The word 'read-only' may mislead agents into thinking the operation is safe, but it refers to the source query. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond annotations.

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 concise single sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. However, it is so short that it omits important context, making it less effectively structured for a complex tool. Still, it is not wasteful.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, nested objects, and output schema, but the description is highly insufficient. It does not explain parameter relationships, when to use the tool, or behavioral implications. Even with annotations present, the description does not cover the necessary context 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?

The description mentions output formats (CSV/XLSX) which hint at the fileType parameter, and references 'data query' or 'cached data view' which loosely map to the sql/data parameters. However, with 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain most parameters, their relationships, or required conditions. It provides minimal added value beyond the 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 clearly states what the tool does: exports data queries or cached views to CSV/XLSX. It uses a specific verb ('export') and identifies the resource type ('data query or cached data view'), which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like sap.source.export. However, it does not explicitly call out the differentiation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or alternative tools. The description only states the function without context for when it is appropriate.

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