sap_read_translations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is a read, explains the optional target-language behavior, and lists the return contents (text IDs, source texts, existing target translations, max lengths). It could mention absence of mutation or error behavior, but for a read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 information-dense without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with the SE63 equivalence, lists supported types compactly, and closes with return value details. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation guidance.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by covering purpose, supported object types, optional target language behavior, and return values. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens when no translations exist or whether the operation is strictly read-only, but the essentials are present.

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 parameters are already documented well. The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing what each object_type semantically covers (e.g., PROG text pool, CLAS descriptions plus text pool, CUAD function texts/titles/menus), helping agents choose appropriate object types.

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 ('Reads translatable texts from a SAP object'), names the resource, and adds a useful analogy to SE63. It enumerates supported object types with concrete meanings, so an agent can immediately understand scope and distinguish it from broader 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?

The description implies usage context: reading source and optional target translations from known SAP object types. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like sap_read_texts, sap_translate, or sap_write_translations, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative conditions.

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