sap_get_session_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by explaining that sap_gui_version and scripting_read_only are returned, and that scripting_read_only=true causes write tools to refuse. That cross-tool side effect is information an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted filler, and the enumerated fields come first. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded around the scripting_read_only condition, but the size is appropriate.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields in detail, yet it usefully summarizes them. Combined with the scripting_read_only warning, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool correctly, though the absence of routing guidance to sibling info tools is a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly focuses on returned content instead.

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 (Get) and resource (information about the current SAP session) and enumerates what is returned (system, client, user, transaction, screen). It is clearly a metadata-read tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling sap_get_screen_info.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type — you call this to inspect current session context — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to alternatives such as sap_get_screen_info or sap_list_connections for related needs.

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