sap_double_click_tree_node

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

Annotations already signal this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds nuance about SPRO trees where double-click may open documentation rather than executing an activity. However, it does not explicitly state whether the action modifies state or what side effects occur, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and follow with a specific exception. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (clicking a node) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main scenario and the SPRO edge case. However, it does not compare with sibling tools like sap_double_click_tree_item, which might be similar, leaving some contextual 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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions for parameters tree_id and node_key). The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how to obtain them, failing to add meaning beyond the raw schema. It only mentions 'node' generically.

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 'Double-click a node in a tree control' with the specific verb and resource, and explains it 'often opens details or drills down'. It also distinguishes the SPRO case from normal usage, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 (for tree nodes) and when not to (for SPRO activities, recommending sap_click_tree_link instead on the execute column). It provides a clear alternative and context for the SPRO scenario.

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