sap_get_table_control_row_info

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it works specifically on GuiTableControl (not ALV grids) and the default behavior when rows is omitted. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and parameter behavior. It does not need to describe return values. All critical aspects are addressed for a read-only metadata retrieval tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that omitting rows queries all visible rows, adding meaning to that parameter. However, table_id is not elaborated, and the description does not add substantial detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves row metadata (selectable, selected) from a GuiTableControl, differentiating it from ALV grids. This specific verb+resource combination, along with the explicit exclusion of ALV, effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_read_table.

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 a clear usage condition: 'If rows is omitted, queries all visible rows.' It also warns against use on ALV grids. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus other table-related tools.

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