sap_get_screen_elements

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains recursion behavior via max_depth, filtering via type_filter, and special value container_id for menu bar. This provides valuable operational insight.

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?

Description is six sentences, each serving a clear purpose: main action, use case, parameter guidance for three parameters, and a special example. Front-loaded with the main purpose, it is well-structured and concise.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter details comprehensively. A minor gap: no mention of error handling or performance considerations, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema provides 4 parameters with defaults but no descriptions. The description compensates fully: it explains type_filter (comma-separated class names), changeable_only (boolean), max_depth (integer, with example values and effect), and container_id (default wnd[0]/usr, specific path for menu bar). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Discover all elements on the current SAP screen,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_read_field or sap_press_button, which have different purposes.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use the tool: 'Useful for finding field IDs when working with a new screen.' It also explains how to reduce response size with type_filter and changeable_only, and adjust max_depth for nested layouts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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