sap_describe_rfc

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 reveals that the tool internally uses RFC_GET_FUNCTION_INTERFACE, requires specific authorization, and may fail if unauthorized. It does not mention side effects (likely none) or output details, but the existence of an output schema mitigates the need for return description. The 'try to' phrasing honesty signals potential failure.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a key requirement in the second. It is concise and easy to parse, though the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet).

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description covers the primary action and a key prerequisite (authorization). However, it does not address error scenarios (e.g., function not found) or clarify the role of the destination parameter. The existence of the output schema partially compensates, but some gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no explanation of the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The description does not mention 'function_name' or 'destination', leaving the agent to infer their purpose from the schema. The parameters are self-explanatory, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify that destination defaults to the current system.

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's purpose: to describe a function module interface using RFC_GET_FUNCTION_INTERFACE. It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('function module interface'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like sap_rfc_call (call) and sap_search_rfc (search).

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 clear usage guidance by specifying the authorization requirement for RFC_GET_FUNCTION_INTERFACE and advising to ask BASIS or provide the interface manually if unavailable. It implicitly tells when not to use (if no authorization), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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