Inspect SAP Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by breaking down capabilities into 'implemented, advertised, authorized, and observed,' which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction is present here.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the verb and object. Every word earns its place, no filler, and the key qualifiers are packed efficiently.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fails to clarify the meaning of 'category' or the role of 'includeEvidence.' These are likely important for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. The description is adequate for the main purpose but leaves notable gaps in understanding optional parameters.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter. It only hints at 'one SAP system' for systemId but says nothing about the category enum or includeEvidence. This forces the agent to guess parameter meanings, especially includeEvidence, which is not self-explanatory.

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 is clear: 'Read implemented, advertised, authorized, and observed capabilities for one SAP system.' It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource (capabilities of one system) with useful qualifiers. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like sap.system.inspect or sap.system.list, but the resource is sufficiently distinct.

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. The description simply states what it reads, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, the lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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