sap_get_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the entity doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (OData entity retrieval with key values), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or dependencies (e.g., requiring an active SAP connection). For a tool with three parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying key-based lookup, which is already suggested by the parameter names. It doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide examples, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific entity'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like sap_query_entity_set (which queries sets) and sap_create_entity/update_entity/delete_entity (which modify entities). However, it doesn't specify the exact resource type (e.g., OData entity) or explicitly mention it's for retrieval by key, which prevents a perfect 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 when to choose sap_get_entity over sap_query_entity_set (for querying vs. direct key lookup) or sap_get_service_metadata (for metadata vs. data). There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a connection) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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