Sap Double Click Tree Item

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry most of the behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose what a double-click triggers (new screen, transaction, popup), whether the action is idempotent, or that the target tree must already be rendered. Given this is a non-read-only UI interaction, the absence of side-effect information is a real gap.

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?

Three short lines, action stated first, parameter clarification second, discovery hint last. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the item_name semantics are covered. Still missing for a 3-required-param, zero-coverage tree interaction: definition of tree_id/node_key and their sourcing, plus what the double-click results in. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 three parameters are documented nowhere but the description. It explains the least obvious one well (item_name is a column name, with examples, and points to sap_read_tree for discovery), but tree_id and node_key are left entirely undefined — including how to obtain node_key.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource: 'Double-click a specific item (column cell) in a tree node row,' and the parenthetical clarifies that 'item' means a column cell rather than a node. This implicitly separates it from sap_double_click_tree_node, though the sibling is never named. Minor gap: it doesn't say what a double-click on an item achieves (drilldown, navigation, edit).

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?

It provides a prerequisite step, 'Use sap_read_tree to discover column names for the tree,' which is genuinely useful routing. However, it doesn't state when to choose this over sap_double_click_tree_node, sap_click_tree_link, or sap_select_tree_node, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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