sap_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks status and gets info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like whether it requires an active connection, what info is returned (e.g., version, latency), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that might be critical in a workflow.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Check SAP OData connection status') and adds a clarifying detail ('get connection info'). Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of SAP tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'connection info' includes, how the status is reported (e.g., success/failure codes), or prerequisites like needing an established connection. For a diagnostic tool in a technical context, more detail is warranted to guide the agent effectively.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('SAP OData connection status'), and it adds 'get connection info' to clarify the output. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'sap_connect' or 'sap_disconnect', which might also relate to connection management, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like verifying connectivity before operations, troubleshooting, or how it differs from siblings such as 'sap_connect' (which might establish a connection) or 'sap_disconnect' (which might end one). This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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