sap_get_toolbar_buttons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns button IDs, text, tooltip, and enabled state, and specifies it works on tbar[0] and tbar[1]. No contradictions, but does not mention prerequisites like being connected to a session, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 (context indicates it exists), the description covers purpose, scope (which toolbars), return fields, and differentiation from sibling. Complete for a simple read-only list 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?

Input schema has one optional parameter 'window_id' with a default, but the description provides no explanation for it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter is simple, but still lacks clarification.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all buttons on system toolbar (tbar[0]) and app toolbar (tbar[1]), specifying returned fields (IDs, text, tooltip, enabled state). It distinguishes from ALV toolbar tool by naming a specific sibling.

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?

Explicitly states it is for standard SAP toolbars, not ALV, and directly references the alternative tool 'sap_get_alv_toolbar'. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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