reentranceTicket

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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral traits: the ticket is single-use, session-bound, and acts as a credential that should be treated as sensitive. This is genuinely useful disclosure that annotations alone do not provide.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool is and when it is used, and the second adds the security-relevant warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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, parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scenario, and sensitivity well. It stops just short of explicitly stating the returned representation, but an agent can reasonably infer that invoking the tool yields the ticket/credential described.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details for the description to add, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 identifies the tool as a single-use ticket for opening SAPGUI without re-authentication, and anchors it in the ADT-to-GUI handoff scenario. It is specific about what the resource is and what it is for, though it does not explicitly contrast it with related siblings like login or dropSession.

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 gives concrete usage context: use this when SAPGUI needs to be opened without logging on again, specifically in the ADT handoff case. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but for a parameterless tool the context is sufficient.

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