bw_get_role_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure and exclusions (only SAP_BW_QUERY objects, not other PFCG types). However, it does not mention read-only nature explicitly, potential errors, or performance characteristics.

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?

Three concise sentences: first defines purpose and return, second clarifies behavioral boundary, third gives usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, parameter usage, and return structure reasonably well. Lacks details on error handling, sorting, or pagination, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 with 100% description coverage already documents the role_name parameter. The description adds value by connecting role_name to bw_get_roles and reiterates the filtering logic, clarifying the behavior beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists BW queries published in roles via the 'Publish to Role' mechanism, and specifies the returned information (role, query technical name, description, object type, InfoProvider). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on published queries only, not other PFCG entries.

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 guidance on using the role_name parameter to filter or omitting it to get all roles. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bw_get_query_roles or bw_set_query_roles, relying on contextual understanding from sibling names.

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