Check RAP Generator Availability

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'Check', such as what occurs if the generator is unavailable or if the system is not configured. Given strong annotations, the bar is lower, and the description does not contradict them, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and target. It is appropriately concise for a simple check operation, though other dimensions suffer from lack of detail.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what the result looks like (though output schema may cover that), nor does it mention error conditions, prerequisites beyond 'configured system', or how this fits into the RAP workflow. For a simple tool it might be borderline sufficient, but given the large sibling list, more context would help agents select and invoke it correctly.

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, but it does not. The parameter names systemId and generatorId are somewhat self-explanatory, but the enum values (uiservice, webapiservice) are not explained in either the schema or the description. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema's basic type and constraint information.

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 'Check one RAP generator on a configured SAP system' clearly identifies the action (check) and the resource (RAP generator), and distinguishes from siblings like sap.rap.generate (which generates) and sap.rap.validate (which validates). However, it could be more explicit about 'availability' as the title states, and it doesn't clarify what 'check' means in terms of output.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It implies a prerequisite that the system must be configured, but there is no mention of scenarios like 'use before generating' or 'if you want to check generator availability, use this instead of sap.system.capabilities.' No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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