SAPNavigate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail: references uses a scope-based Where-Used API, objectType filters by ADT slash type with bare-prefix behavior, and hierarchy returns superclass+interfaces+subclasses. However it doesn't disclose edge cases like authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when neither uri nor type+name is provided.

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 reasonably tight, front-loaded with the four actions, and each sentence adds value. The CDS recommendation sentence is slightly long but necessary for sibling differentiation. No wasted prose.

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 9-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral surface: what each action does, the scope-based references approach, filtering behavior, and a strong sibling alternative. Some gaps remain (e.g., what definition/completion return, line/column handling), but the core guidance is present and actionable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the bare-prefix matching behavior for objectType ('A bare prefix matches every subtype'), the maxResults default/cap semantics, and the type+name-as-uri-alternative pattern for references. These go beyond the literal schema texts.

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 navigates code with four specific actions: definitions, references, completion, and class hierarchy. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning SAPContext for CDS views specifically, giving some differentiation though not for all sibling tools (SAPSearch, SAPLint etc.).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, notably recommending SAPContext(action='impact') as an alternative for CDS (DDLS) where-used queries — a clear when-not-here, use-this-instead directive. It also explains when to pass type+name instead of uri for references, which is actionable usage guidance.

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