sap_diagnose_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The numbered steps disclose exactly what the tool does (T100 lookup, source location, enhancement check) and explicitly states that it returns a structured diagnosis with root-cause analysis and fix suggestions. It does not mention failure modes or side-effect/read-only status, but the steps clearly imply analysis.

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 longer than average but highly organized: a lead-in use case, a numbered diagnostic chain, and an INPUT section. Each sentence adds information, and the all-caps 'USE THIS' and 'INPUT' signposts make it scannable.

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 tool with no output schema, it sufficiently describes the return (structured diagnosis with root cause and fixes) and covers the full workflow including fallback from text to T100. Gaps like behavior when no message is found or requiring permissions are minor given the detailed input guidance.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable input-combination semantics: 'Provide EITHER message_id + message_number ... OR message_text', and clarifies transaction/program_name as optional scoping, which helps the agent choose valid parameter groups beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Diagnose a SAP error/warning/info message end-to-end', naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. The numbered diagnostic chain (resolve message class/number, locate source, read surrounding code, check enhancements) clearly separates it from siblings like sap_lookup_t100 or sap_read_code, which perform only sub-steps.

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 states 'USE THIS when a user shares a SAP message — whether as a screenshot, text, or message ID', giving a clear trigger condition. It defines the input alternatives (message_id+number vs message_text) and optional scoping params, but does not name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions.

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