sap_read_where_used

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 explains the non-obvious direction parameter semantics (forward/inverse) which is a critical behavioral trait. While it doesn't mention side effects or errors, the tool appears to be a read-only lookup and the description covers the primary gotchas.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Cross-reference lookup') and immediately clarifies the ambiguous 'direction' parameter with parallel phrasing. Every word earns its place, and the SE84 reference adds immediate recognition for SAP-savvy users.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (four parameters, no output schema), the description effectively explains the core behavior and the key parameter that affects results. It doesn't discuss max_results defaults, but the schema already documents it. The description feels complete for the main use case without being verbose.

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 input schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds valuable meaning to the 'direction' parameter by clarifying the forward/inverse distinction with concrete examples. It also provides realistic example values for object_name and object_type in the schema, reducing ambiguity beyond a simple list of allowed values.

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 purpose as a cross-reference lookup and distinguishes it from typical read operations by explaining the two direction semantics: 'forward' finds users of an object and 'inverse' finds dependencies of a program. It effectively disambiguates the tool from siblings like sap_read_table_data or sap_read_code.

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 on when to use each direction with explicit examples ('what programs/classes use this object?' vs. 'what does this program use?'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, though the sibling list contains no directly competing tool, so this is acceptable.

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