sap_get_cell_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the returned metadata fields (value, changeable, color, tooltip, style, max_length) and highlighting the incompatibility with GuiTableControl. No contradictions and no missing behavioral traits.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key details. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and a critical limitation. Minor improvement could come from structuring the return fields as a list, but current form is functional.

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 has an output schema, the description adequately covers return values by listing the fields. However, the lack of parameter descriptions means the description is incomplete for invocation. For a tool with three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the agent needs more context to use it correctly.

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?

The description provides no explanation of the parameters (grid_id, row, column) beyond their names. With 0% schema description coverage, the burden on the description is high. Without explaining what grid_id refers to (e.g., the ID from sap_get_screen_elements) or the expected format for row and column, the agent lacks sufficient guidance to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool gets detailed cell metadata from an ALV grid, specifying the exact fields returned. It explicitly notes it does not work on GuiTableControl, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sap_get_current_cell or sap_read_table. The verb 'Get' and resource 'cell metadata' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance by stating it works on ALV grids and explicitly excluding GuiTableControl. However, it does not mention alternative tools for other grid types or when to prefer this over closely related siblings, such as sap_get_current_cell. This is a minor gap, but the exclusion is helpful.

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