rapGenIsAvailable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral nuance by explaining that the tool is a check-only operation and describes the boolean outcome (false on classic ERP, true on recent S/4). This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the semantics of the result, though it does not detail return formats or edge cases.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, outcome context, and limitation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a simple boolean check with one optional parameter and safe annotations, the description fully covers usage, outcome, and limitations. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the result is clearly implied as a boolean. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, including its default value and what it does. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: it checks whether the RAP generator is available on the system, returning a boolean. It distinguishes itself by explicitly noting that it is only a check, not the generator itself, which sets it apart from any other tools that might generate or invoke RAP services. The mention of classic ERP vs recent S/4 further clarifies the expected 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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'ask this before assuming a RAP-based approach is possible here.' This gives clear context for when the tool is relevant. It also clarifies that only the check is wrapped, not the generator, so the user knows not to expect generation functionality from this call.

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