Test SAP Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those: it performs a handshake, reads the discovery document, and maps errors (401, 404, TLS) to config problems. This gives an agent a clear model of what happens when the tool is called.

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 well-organized with clear sections for purpose, arguments, return value, usage, and error handling. It is thorough but not verbose, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers invocation, return shape, usage timing, and error interpretation. Without an output schema, documenting the JSON return structure is especially helpful and makes the description 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has a clear enum and default in the schema. The description repeats the response_format options without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Verify connectivity and authentication') and a specific resource ('configured SAP S/4HANA system via ADT'). It also describes the mechanism (CSRF/session handshake, ADT discovery document), which makes the tool's role clear and distinguishable from sibling SAP 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 says to use this tool first to confirm environment configuration and ICF service availability, and gives a natural-language trigger ('Can you connect to SAP?'). It does not explicitly contrast it with related siblings like sap_rfc_ping, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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