datasphere_cli_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool never returns tokens or secrets, that session validity is checked via `config secrets check` without disclosing values, and that an unauthenticated state requires the user to run an interactive login. It also explains the behavioral distinction between the MCP server's OAuth identity and the CLI's separate session, preventing false confidence from a healthy MCP connection.

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 lengthy but every section earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, background, output contract, critical caveat, division of labour, and safety. It uses clear headers and bullets, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. This is effective information density, not bloat.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a complete contract: output shape, diagnostic notes, security behavior, and user fallback instructions. It also clarifies the boundary between CLI capabilities and MCP tools, giving the agent full context for invocation and interpretation. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (`cli_available`, `cli_path`, `version`, `host`, `authenticated`, `notes`) and how to interpret them, but there is no parameter syntax to document. This meets the baseline and slightly exceeds it with output context.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Check whether the SAP Datasphere CLI is installed, configured and logged in.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining it validates the CLI's separate identity versus the MCP server's OAuth-based data access, and ties it to CLI-backed tools like create_table and *_database_user*.

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 explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets listing concrete triggers: after a CLI-backed tool fails, before promising object creation, and when diagnosing CLI/auth errors. It also includes a 'Division of labour' section that says when to use a CLI command instead of an MCP tool, and an 'Important' note that the agent cannot perform the interactive login. This is exemplary when/when-not guidance.

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