Sap Double Click Tree Node

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the action often only reveals details or documentation, meaning a 'successful' double-click may not perform the intended activity. It does not discuss focus changes, expansion side effects, or timing, so it stops short of full 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 primary action is stated first, followed by the caveat and the pointer to the alternative tool; every sentence carries information. The parenthetical and the SPRO paragraph could be slightly tightened but nothing is redundant.

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 behavioral caveat is covered. The remaining gap is substantial for a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema documentation: an agent still cannot tell what a valid tree_id or node_key looks like.

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% – neither tree_id nor node_key is documented in the schema – and the description supplies nothing about them, such as where tree_id comes from (sap_read_tree / get_screen_elements) or whether node_key is a path, index, or internal key. The only parameter-like detail mentioned (column '2') belongs to a different tool.

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 and resource ('Double-click a node in a tree control') and states the likely outcome (opens details or drills down). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by naming sap_click_tree_link, but does not differentiate from the very similar sap_double_click_tree_item in the sibling list.

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 gives a concrete when-not case: in SPRO/customizing trees a double-click may open hypertext documentation instead of executing, so the agent should use sap_click_tree_link on the execute column instead. That is actionable routing guidance, though no other alternatives or preconditions (e.g. node must be visible/expanded) are mentioned.

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