Read Runtime Error

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it documents the full returned JSON structure, explains that 'text' is the complete ST22 report, and discloses the 404 housekeeping/reorganization failure mode. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 compact and well-structured with separate sections for summary, args, returns, examples, and error handling. Everything included earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by explicitly listing the JSON return fields and describing the content of 'text'. It also explains how to obtain dump_uri and how to handle a 404, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly even without prior knowledge.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, including the dump_uri prefix, the encoded-space caution, and the response_format enum with default. The description mostly repeats the pass-through/verbatim idea and merely names response_format, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one ABAP runtime error (short dump) in full'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling sap_list_dumps by focusing on a single dump. It also anchors the workflow by saying the dump_uri comes from sap_list_dumps, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 gives a clear usage pattern: call sap_list_dumps first, then sap_get_dump with the returned URI. The example and 404 recovery guidance reinforce when and how to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the prerequisite and workflow make the intended usage clear.

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