sap_read_table_structure

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 accurately states the tool reads field definitions without mentioning side effects. It doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist) and gives a clear behavioral summary, though it doesn't mention potential permissions or rate limits.

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, directly stating the purpose and suggesting a usage context. It is structured with a clear action (Get), resource (field definitions of an SAP table), and outcome. No unnecessary details.

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?

It includes a usage hint and the required parameter, making it sufficient for basic selection. It doesn't provide output schema details, but that's not always necessary. It leverages sibling tool names to imply alternatives. Slightly missing explicit outputs, but it's adequate.

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?

Only one parameter, table_name, is required and well-described with an example (EKKO). The schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is clearly named and explained. No ambiguity exists.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves field definitions of an SAP table or structure, specifying the types of information provided (names, types, lengths, key fields, descriptions). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sap_read_table_data (data) and sap_read_code (code) by focusing on structure.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call this before querying a table you are not sure about.' This indicates a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies it's for structure discovery, not data retrieval, which is covered by sibling tools.

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