get_analytical_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic identification based on SAP annotations but does not state performance implications, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured, e.g., by listing return fields explicitly. Still, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 lack of output schema, the description should more fully describe the returned structure (e.g., hierarchy details, field types). It mentions dimensions, measures, hierarchies, and aggregation info but omits details on error conditions or response format, making it incomplete for a metadata retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about the identify_dimensions_measures parameter by linking it to SAP annotations, but this is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no significant additional meaning is provided.

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 it retrieves CSDL metadata for analytical consumption, including dimensions, measures, hierarchies, and aggregation information. It distinguishes from siblings like get_analytical_model and get_relational_metadata by focusing on analytical schema for BI integration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_analytical_model or list_analytical_datasets. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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