sap_get_current_cell

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool retrieves the focused cell position in specific control types (ALV grid or table control), which provides context beyond annotations but does not detail return format or side effects. No contradictions with 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and immediately front-loads the core purpose.

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 existence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important context such as the requirement that a cell must be focused for the tool to succeed, and does not mention error conditions. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a robust understanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'table_id' parameter. The agent has no guidance on what value to provide or how to obtain it. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should clarify its purpose to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'currently focused cell position in an ALV grid or table control'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_get_cell_info (gets cell info by coordinates) and sap_set_current_cell (sets focus). The purpose is unambiguous and specific to the current focus.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sap_get_cell_info or sap_read_table. There is no indication of prerequisites or context in which the tool is appropriate.

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