sap_prompt_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not contain its own LLM and that the output is a protocol to be used with RFC tools. This is useful behavioral context beyond the parameter schema, but it does not detail any side effects, response format (though output schema exists), or permissions required. Still, for a tool with no annotations, this adds good transparency.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains how to use its output. No unnecessary words.

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 has only one parameter, an output schema exists (so return values are covered), and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, how to use the output, and the relationship to sibling tools. For a simple protocol-generation tool, this is thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 'prompt' parameter. It only says 'Return an execution protocol for a human SAP prompt,' which implies the parameter is the human prompt, but lacks details on format, length constraints, or example inputs. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 'Return an execution protocol for a human SAP prompt,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that the MCP server does not contain its own LLM, so the host LLM must use this protocol plus RFC tools, making its unique role clear.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'The host LLM should use this protocol plus the RFC tools to translate human intent into safe SAP actions.' This implies not for direct execution, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. The context signals show sibling tools like 'sap_rfc_call' which handle direct execution, so the guidance is adequate but slightly implicit.

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