sap_profile_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that signer metadata is redacted and wallet paths are omitted, but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation or discuss authorization or side effects.

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 of 10 words with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what information each profile entry includes. It only mentions what is omitted (signer metadata, wallet paths), leaving the agent to guess about other fields like profile name or ID.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. According to rules, a score of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, as the description need not add parameter info.

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 lists available SAP MCP profiles and distinguishes it from sibling profile tools (e.g., sap_profile_current, sap_profile_public_key) by specifying 'with redacted signer metadata and no wallet paths'.

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 this tool is for browsing all profiles but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. other profile tools. No guidance on exclusions or alternatives is provided.

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