sap_read_dump_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (full error texts, cause, solution) and implies a read-only drill-down operation. However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, failure behavior, or what happens when no matching dump is found.

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 with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and return content; the second provides actionable usage guidance. 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational needs: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and how to source parameters. It is slightly incomplete around edge cases like missing dumps or language fallback behavior, but overall an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters with examples and source references, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to pass date, time, user, server, and error_id directly from sap_read_dumps results, clarifying that these are pass-through values rather than independently constructed inputs.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get detailed information for a specific short dump including full error texts, cause, and solution.' It explicitly frames this as a drill-down after sap_read_dumps, distinguishing it from sibling list/search tools.

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 clearly says to use this after sap_read_dumps to drill into a specific dump and instructs the agent to pass parameters directly from sap_read_dumps results. It does not name alternative error-handling tools like sap_lookup_error, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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