SAPNavigate

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It explains the scope-based API for references, the format for objectType filtering (ADT slash type), the default and max for maxResults, and that hierarchy returns specific relationships. There is 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the main actions. It is slightly long but every sentence serves a purpose. Minor improvement could be more structured formatting, but it is concise enough.

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 (9 parameters, 4 actions) and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios and parameter usage. It lacks details on return format and error handling, but the schema descriptions and the behavioral context provided are sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: for references, it explains the scope-based API and the objectType filter format; for hierarchy, it clarifies return types; it also describes the alternative object identification (uri vs name+type). This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool navigates code for definitions, references, completion, and hierarchy. It provides specific details for each action: references uses the scope-based Where-Used API with line numbers, snippets, and package; hierarchy returns superclass, interfaces, and subclasses. It also contrasts with SAPContext for CDS objects, effectively distinguishing it from siblings.

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 guidance on when to use references vs hierarchy and when to prefer SAPContext for CDS impact analysis. It also explains alternative ways to specify objects (uri vs type+name). However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance for other actions or list alternatives for definition and completion.

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