ListSystems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' plus the read-only field enumeration ('Shows system IDs, names, URLs...') makes the non-mutating nature clear, and naming the source file .sap-systems.json adds useful context. It does not state whether systems are filtered by permissions or how credentials are surfaced, leaving minor behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the returned-field detail second. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does by listing the exposed fields including the default/active indicator. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only edge cases like empty configuration or permission scoping left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of returned attributes is not parameter semantics but does not detract from an already complete schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all configured SAP systems') plus the backing file and the fields returned. It implicitly contrasts with the mutation sibling SetDefaultSystem by noting it 'indicates which is the default/active system', but does not explicitly name any sibling or route the agent between ListSystems and GetSystemInfo.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes no parameters and enumerates all systems, so an agent can infer it is the discovery entry point. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over GetSystemInfo or how it relates to SetDefaultSystem, and no stated prerequisites.

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