Discover SAP Cloud ALM resources

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, closed-world profile, so the description's job is to add content-level context — and it does, enumerating exactly what a call returns (resource/provider inventory, required parameters, task type/status/priority code lists, worked recipes). It adds no auth, rate-limit or freshness detail, but for a static reference tool that is a minor gap.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence plus a short usage clause; every phrase carries information (what it returns, the special 'recipes' value, the focusing behavior). Nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload — and it does so comprehensively, covering the resource inventory, required parameters, code lists and recipes. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and how to interpret the result.

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 single parameter is fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description essentially restates the schema's semantics (a resource/provider name, or "recipes" for examples) without adding new format or constraint detail, which is the baseline case.

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 names a specific verb and resource: a discovery helper that lists every resource/provider the other tools accept, plus code lists and recipes. The 'Discovery helper' framing cleanly separates it from the data-operating siblings calm_list, calm_get and calm_analytics.

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 explains how to drive the tool ('Pass topic="recipes"... or a resource/provider name to focus'), which implies it is used to look up valid inputs before calling the other tools. However, it never states explicitly when to reach for this versus calm_list/calm_get, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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