bw_system_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details three specific preconditions it verifies (Accept-header handling, ADT DataPreview access, reporting resource implementation), and explains the consequence of a broken Accept-header (HTTP 406 on BW 7.5). It also notes that the REST route may be published but not implemented on classic BW. This is exemplary transparency for a system-check tool.

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 dense paragraph but each sentence adds value: system type detection, endpoint groups, three preconditions, and routing advice. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullets), but it is not verbose or redundant. Every sentence earns its place, though the wall-of-text format is slightly suboptimal.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what it does, when to use it, what it checks, and what actions to take based on the results. An agent has everything it needs to decide when and how to invoke this tool, and what to do with the information it returns.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs. No schema details needed.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: identify the BW system type and which tools are compatible. It explicitly distinguishes SAP BW/4HANA from classic BW via the b4hanamode flag, and mentions checking REST endpoint groups and preconditions. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like bw_query_data or bw_read_metadata_tables, which are mentioned as alternatives.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: call this before planning work on a system whose release you don't know. It also names a specific alternative (bw_read_metadata_tables) for classic BW when certain REST resources are missing, and explains why—one call beats inferring from failures. This is precise and actionable.

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