Discover SAP Cloud ALM resources

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses that the tool is read-only in effect (it 'lists' information), enumerates the content categories (resources, parameters, code lists, recipes), and explains the topic parameter's effect. It does not detail output format or edge cases, but for a discovery helper this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role ('Discovery helper'), and every clause adds information about the returned content or usage. No redundant words.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers its purpose, content, and filtering. Sibling tool names provide context that this is one of several Calm tools, and the description explains how this helper supports them.

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 schema already documents topic thoroughly with 100% coverage ('Optional: a resource/provider name, or "recipes" for worked examples'). The description repeats this instruction without adding new semantic detail, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Discovery helper' that lists resources, parameters, code lists, and recipes accepted by sibling tools. It distinguishes itself from calm_list/get/analytics by positioning itself as a meta-tool for learning about the other tools, so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides direct usage instructions: pass topic='recipes' for multi-step examples or a resource/provider name to focus. This clearly states when to use the tool and how to tailor the query, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the implicit contrast with 'the other tools'.

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