sap_get_screen_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the data source (session.ActiveWindow), the dynamic nature (reflects what user sees), and the relationship with action tools. No contradictions.

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 with three short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then provides behavioral and usage details without any 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema (indicated), the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how it works, and when to use the sibling tool instead. It is fully self-contained.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It appropriately focuses on output and usage context.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves current SAP screen info including transaction, program, screen number, title, and status. It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting that action tools return the same info and pointing to sap_get_popup_window for popup content.

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 advises using sap_get_popup_window for full popup content, giving a clear alternative. It also explains that every action tool returns this screen info, so the agent knows it doesn't need to call this tool separately after performing actions.

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