Plan SAP Runtime Repair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a command and is a 'free helper', which is useful but not beyond what annotations cover. 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 is two sentences, zero wasted words, and all information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, read-only, idempotent), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It's complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, meaning the parameter's description already explains it as 'Optional runtime to focus repair instructions on'. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 the tool returns a pinned latest-release repair command for SAP MCP and local sap_payments bridge. The verb 'returns' and specific resources make the purpose clear. However, 'runtime repair' could be more precisely defined for unfamiliar users.

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 advises using this tool 'before asking users to manually edit runtime config', providing clear usage context. No alternatives are mentioned, but sibling tools don't include a similar repair function, so exclusion isn't necessary.

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