SAPContext

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

The description details behavioral traits such as returning KTD first, compressed dependency contracts, and token savings (7-30x fewer tokens). It explains the impact action's outputs (upstream AST deps + downstream classified into RAP buckets) and guardrail errors. Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent, and 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 lengthy but well-structured with sections and bullet points. It front-loads the primary purpose and key decision rules. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise without losing essential details. The organization compensates for the length.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema but description explains return values), the description fully covers the context. It includes references to documentation and addresses all user intents. The missing output schema is compensated by detailed behavioral descriptions.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains each action with examples, clarifies when parameters are optional or required (e.g., group required for FUNC), and provides context-specific guidance for using each parameter effectively.

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 it is the 'Primary tool for understanding ABAP/CDS objects' and specifies when to use it over SAPRead. It provides a specific verb (understand) and resource (objects), and distinguishes from siblings through usage guidance.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'use instead of SAPRead when the user asks what an object does' and 'Use SAPRead after SAPContext'. It also provides a decision rule for picking actions based on user questions, including alternatives like SAPNavigate for non-CDS reverse-lookup.

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