Resolve SAP MCP Next Action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds context about being a 'routing resolver' for errors, but does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 consists of two succinct sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage context. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no required, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose, usage triggers, and error scenarios. The output schema handles return value documentation. Slight room for improvement could be mentioning output type, but overall sufficiently complete.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'intent' enum, 'errorCode' values). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description implicitly relates parameters to error handling, but no explicit parameter guidance.

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 'Free routing resolver for SAP MCP errors and partial results', specifying its role as a resolver for error conditions. It lists concrete error codes (e.g., payment_required, BlockhashNotFound) and scenarios (timeout, unconfirmed signature), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling 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 explicitly directs agents to use this tool 'before retrying after' a list of specific errors and partial results (e.g., payment_required, timeout). This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive context is strong enough to avoid misuse.

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