sap_get_column_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, ensuring the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the kind of information returned (column names, titles, widths, visibility), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 (four lines) and front-loaded with the main action and return values. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is well-organized with no wasted words.

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?

The output schema exists (though not shown), so return values may be documented there. However, the single parameter 'grid_id' lacks any explanation in both the schema and the description. For a tool with only one parameter, the omission of parameter context makes it incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'grid_id' has no description in the schema. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about what value to provide for grid_id.

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 ('Get detailed column info') and the resources ('ALV grid or table control'). It also explicitly mentions the returned data (column names, titles, widths, visibility) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'sap_read_table' by suggesting it as a lighter alternative.

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 explicit guidance: it states the tool is 'useful for understanding table structure' and offers an alternative ('For a lighter alternative, use sap_read_table with columns_only=true'). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus when to use a sibling.

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