sap_get_short_dumps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It only reveals the internal mechanism (primary and fallback) but omits key behaviors like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential timeouts. The lack of safety or side-effect disclosure leaves agents guessing.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 13 words), but this comes at the cost of missing essential information. It earns its place by stating purpose and mechanism, but could be improved by adding parameter details without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, the context is insufficient for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It provides no explanation of the four parameters (date_from, date_to, user, destination), leaving agents to infer meaning solely from names. No format, range, or behavior info is given.

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 returns ABAP short dumps, specifying the mechanism (RFC_GET_SHORT_DUMP_LIST or SNAP fallback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_get_syslog or sap_audit_tail.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as in investigating ABAP application errors. The fallback mention is an implementation detail, not a usage cue.

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