SAPDiagnose

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

The annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false do not clarify side effects. The description inconsistently labels some actions as 'read-only' (e.g., atc_variants, cds_testcases, odata_perf) but leaves write actions like apply_quickfix, trace_start, and set_sql_trace_state ambiguous. Notably, apply_quickfix is described as 'apply one proposal... no write', which is confusing and could mislead about its actual system impact.

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 a single bullet-like list of actions and their parameters, which is efficient and scannable. Although lengthy (covers 20+ actions), it avoids redundancy and maintains a consistent structure (action: description, parameters). It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to the density of information that could overwhelm without the schema reference.

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 (38 parameters, 20+ actions), the description covers all actions and their required/optional parameters, notes read-only status for some, and points to a full reference. It lacks details on return formats or error handling, but since there is no output schema, this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly in most scenarios.

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?

With 95% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameters with context: it explains defaults (e.g., version defaults to 'active', sourceUri defaults to main source), required relationships (e.g., proposalUri needed for apply_quickfix), and per-action constraints (e.g., 'read-only' flags, 'needs allowDataPreview'). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool 'Run diagnostics on ABAP objects and analyze runtime errors' and enumerates specific actions (syntax, unittest, ATC, dumps, traces, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like SAPRead or SAPLint, which have different scopes.

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 clear context for each action (e.g., 'syntax-check', 'read-only', 'needs allowDataPreview') but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over SAPRead/SAPSearch. The implied usage is clear enough for diagnostics scenarios.

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