bw_list_remote_entities

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

Description clearly labels the tool as read-only discovery, which is transparent. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well. However, it could mention that it's a list operation without side effects, but the context is sufficient.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description gives enough context about the return (list of entities with technical_name). For a listing tool, it's adequately complete, though a mention of return structure would be slightly better.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the result_size parameter's role in truncation and the search_pattern's filtering on technicalName. It also emphasizes that technical_name is key for the binding tool, enhancing schema meaning.

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 it lists remote entities (HANA views/virtual tables) exposed by a source system as DataSource basis. It specifies the read-only discovery nature and references the Eclipse value help, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to find a valid hana_entity before creating a DataSource. It also links the technical_name to the bw_create_datasource tool, providing clear usage guidance.

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