SAPDiagnose

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

The description clearly discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it marks read-only actions (e.g., cds_testcases, atc_variants, object_state, dumps, traces, etc.) and write-scope actions (trace_start, trace_cancel). It also details side effects (e.g., trace_start defaults to HTTP, SQL on) and limitations ('needs allowDataPreview'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but well-structured: a one-line summary, a bullet list of actions with concise descriptions, and a brief workflow reference. It front-loads the overall purpose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'read-only' for multiple actions), but it remains efficient for the tool's complexity.

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 (35 parameters, 20 actions, multiple workflows), the description covers all actions, their parameters, and contextual behavior. It includes a workflow example for quickfixes and a link to full reference. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by action-specific return descriptions (e.g., 'returns ETags/hashes/divergence flags').

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds substantial value by explaining action-specific usage, default behaviors, and relationships (e.g., 'id' for dumps/traces; 'Omit to list, provide to get details'). It also clarifies parameter dependencies like 'proposalUserContent: pass through exactly'.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Run diagnostics on ABAP objects and analyze runtime errors.' It then enumerates 20 distinct actions, each with a specific purpose. This distinguishes SAPDiagnose from siblings like SAPRead, SAPSearch, etc., which handle other concerns.

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 explicit usage guidance for each sub-action, including preconditions (e.g., 'optional source = pre-write dry-run, nothing written'), the workflow for quickfixes, and constraints like 'read-only' flags. It also references a full action reference page. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the guidance is thorough and actionable.

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