sap_expand_tree_node

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: false and readOnlyHint: false, so the description correctly implies a state-changing (non-read-only) but non-destructive action. It adds the behavioral detail that children become visible after expansion, which is useful context beyond what annotations provide.

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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second provides actionable follow-up steps. No extraneous information is included.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description covers the essential usage scenario: how to perform the action and what to do next. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., node must be collapsible) or error conditions, but these are typical for such a simple operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It implicitly explains tree_id and node_key as identifiers for the tree control and the node to expand. However, it does not provide explicit details like data types, format expectations, or restrictions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the action (expand) and the target (folder node in a tree control) to reveal children. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool sap_collapse_tree_node by focusing on expansion, and provides specific follow-up tools (sap_get_tree_node_children, sap_read_tree).

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 instructs to use sap_get_tree_node_children or sap_read_tree after expansion to see children. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear for a simple expand operation, and the sibling list includes a collapse tool, implying alternative use cases.

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