sap_list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions it's a 'Compatibility alias' but doesn't explain what that implies (e.g., safe, read-only, no side effects). Does not state whether it's idempotent or if it requires specific permissions. The requirement for protocol or capability is mentioned, but deeper behavioral context is lacking.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence gives purpose, the second adds constraint and alternative. Highly efficient.

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?

At 5 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out details like default limit behavior, what hydrate does, and what the return structure looks like. While the sibling tool distinction is helpful, the overall description is minimal for a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity.

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 all parameters. The description adds that 'protocol or capability' is required, which is not in schema, but doesn't elaborate on individual params like limit, hydrate, or capabilities beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it's a 'Compatibility alias for filtered SAP agent discovery', using specific verb 'discovery' and resource 'SAP agent'. It also immediately distinguishes from sibling 'sap_list_all_agents' by specifying that tool is for a global snapshot.

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?

Explicitly says 'Requires protocol or capability' and directs to use 'sap_list_all_agents' for unfiltered results, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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