sap_read_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses row limit, where clause format, default delimiter, and truncation to 512 bytes. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the disclosed behaviors are significant and useful.

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 succinct at three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds clarifying details in minimal space. Every sentence earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and output schema present, the description covers key behavioral aspects: purpose, where clause, delimiter, truncation, and alternatives. It lacks pagination or error handling info but is reasonably complete for a read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'where' parameter with an example and mentions delimiter default. However, other parameters like 'fields', 'no_data', and 'destination' are not elaborated beyond their names. The description adds value but not fully.

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 it reads a SAP transparent table/view via RFC_READ_TABLE with a row limit. It identifies the specific RFC function and mentions a row limit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sap_catalog_search or sap_rfc_call.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: suggests preferring purpose-built tools for safe OPTIONS, advises using alternatives for wide tables, and explains the where parameter as an advanced escape hatch. This tells agents when and when not to use the tool.

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