sap_read_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as status code meanings and date format, but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any access-related requirements. The term 'runtime' is ambiguous without further explanation of what runtime data is returned or how it is calculated.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Read SM37 background jobs') and immediately follows with essential supporting details (status codes and date format). Every word earns its place; there is no superfluous content.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with no output schema. It provides the necessary value codes and date format to invoke parameters correctly. However, it could be slightly more complete by explaining what 'runtime' and 'scheduling' refer to in the response, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the 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?

Although the schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining the status code values (F, A, R, S, P) and the date format (YYYYMMDD). These enrich the schema definitions for 'status' and 'date_from/date_to', guiding the agent to use correct input formats. This goes beyond merely repeating the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Read SM37 background jobs — status, runtime, scheduling.' It uses a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (SM37 background jobs), and outlines the key data aspects (status, runtime, scheduling). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all focus on other SAP artifacts like tables, code, and dumps.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to read background jobs with status, runtime, and scheduling info. It also includes critical usage details like status code meanings (F=Finished, A=Aborted, etc.) and date format (YYYYMMDD). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though sibling tools make the differentiation obvious.

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