sap_get_cell_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by explaining the meaning of the returned 'state' field (why a cell was rejected) and the supported control type, which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact enumeration of return fields, closing with the control-type limitation. The field list is dense but each entry adds information; nothing reads as padding.

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 the description needn't fully restate return values, and the GuiTableControl exclusion is a useful caveat. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics for a three-required-parameter tool leaves a significant gap for correct invocation.

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% and the description says nothing about grid_id, row, or column — not their format, indexing base, accepted column identifiers, or validity constraints. With all three required parameters undocumented in both schema and description, an agent has to guess how to address a cell.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed cell metadata from an ALV grid') and enumerates the metadata fields, making it distinguishable from siblings like sap_get_current_cell or sap_get_table_control_row_info. The explicit exclusion 'Does NOT work on GuiTableControl' further pins down the target control type.

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?

Offers one negative constraint ('Does NOT work on GuiTableControl'), which is real routing value, but gives no positive when-to-use statement and never names the alternative tool to use for GuiTableControl. Usage is left largely to inference.

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