Call RFC Function Module

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly warning that the tool 'can execute arbitrary function modules including write operations' and that authorization should be confirmed in production. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false and gives the agent crucial safety context.

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-structured and front-loaded: purpose, prerequisite, warning, argument summary, return format, and examples. Every sentence contributes operational value; the warning is prominent without bloating the text.

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 an open-world, arbitrary-execution tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape, the need for discovery via sap_rfc_describe, and the write-risk warning. Minor gaps like error behavior and table parameter handling are not fully explained, but the schema and examples cover most practical invocation needs.

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?

Input schema already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value through concrete examples (BAPI_MATERIAL_GET_DETAIL and RFC_READ_TABLE) and clarifies that params contain import/changing parameters with default {}. This is a meaningful supplement, not just a schema repeat.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Call any RFC-enabled function module and return all exported parameters.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sap_bapi_call (BAPI-specific) and sap_read_table by emphasizing arbitrary RFC function modules.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Use sap_rfc_describe first to discover parameters', which routes the agent to the correct discovery predecessor. It also advises confirming authorization before writing in production. It does not explicitly name alternatives like sap_bapi_call, but the guidance is sufficient for typical invocation.

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