sap_get_transaction_guide

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

The description aligns with annotations by noting 'read-first guide,' confirming read-only behavior. It adds context that the guide is generic and lists available transactions, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., what happens if transaction is unsupported). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, so the description provides marginal additional value.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the absence of parameter descriptions suggests opportunities to add structure without sacrificing conciseness.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description should elaborate on both parameters, especially the optional 'task' field. It also lacks detail on what the guide contains or how to interpret the output. The output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description should be more complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'task' parameter. The 'transaction' parameter is partially clarified by listing available values, but without formal descriptions. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for correct parameter usage.

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's purpose: returning a generic, read-first guide for a supported SAP transaction. It also names a specific transaction and aliases, distinguishing it from sibling tools that execute transactions or navigate screens.

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 implies usage when a guide is needed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sap_execute_transaction or sap_get_workflow_guide. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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