bw_get_infoarea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Read', indicating a non-destructive operation. The description is clear about what it retrieves but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or performance characteristics. However, for a simple read tool, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action and output. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and no output schema. The description compensates by listing the four fields returned (name, label, parent area, object status), which gives a clear idea of the response structure. This is sufficient for a simple read operation, though it does not specify data types or formats.

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 input schema already provides a clear description of the single parameter (name with an example). Schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond stating the tool's output. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and explicitly mentions the resource 'InfoArea definition', listing the specific fields returned (name, label, parent area, object status). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on different SAP BW objects.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied (retrieve InfoArea details), but there is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Given the presence of many other 'get' tools for different objects, some differentiation would help.

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