sap_get_jobs

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

Given no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the fallback behavior and error preservation, but does not mention side effects or permissions needed.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, the second sentence could be simplified for clarity.

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?

With 4 parameter descriptions missing and an output schema present but not described, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent lacks guidance on parameter values and expected output, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, yet the description adds no detail about the four parameters (top_n, status, since_days, destination). The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 explicitly states 'Read SAP background jobs' and names the specific BAPI and fallback method (BAPI_XBP_JOB_SELECT, TBTCO). This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like sap_read_table or sap_get_locks.

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 explains the fallback mechanism when BAPI is not allowed, giving context on when the tool works. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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