sap_read_texts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Retrieves' clearly signals a non-mutating read, and the parenthetical tells the agent what kind of data is returned. Still, it does not mention permissions, language behavior, output shape, or how CLAS/FUGR objects are handled despite the 'program' framing.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds specificity about text element subtypes without bloating the text.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the core operation is clear. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the result contains or how to interpret text elements, and the 'program' wording conflicts with the broader object_type enum. Some ambiguity remains for an agent deciding whether this fits the task.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters and the enum for object_type. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as clarifying that CLAS and FUGR are also valid despite the word 'program.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given the rich 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names the concrete resource ('text elements'), with the parenthetical clarifying sub-types (selection texts, text symbols). However, it says 'for a program' even though the schema allows CLAS and FUGR, and it does not explicitly distinguish this from the many sibling read 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sap_read_translations, sap_read_code, or sap_read_dynpros. The intended use is only implicit from the description, with no stated exclusions or selection criteria.

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