sap_get_workflow_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond stating it returns guidance. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not reveal additional traits like response format or potential side effects.

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 (two sentences plus bullet points) and front-loads the purpose. Every part is informative without redundancy. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's function and input parameters. It lists all available workflows and their target usage. However, it does not describe the output format or handle potential edge cases, but the output schema likely fills that 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is essential. For the 'workflow' enum, it explains each value and what the 'target' should be. This adds significant meaning, though the 'target' parameter lacks format or constraint details beyond the examples.

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 it returns step-by-step guidance for SAP workflows, listing three specific workflows. While it is distinct from sibling tools that perform actions, it does not explicitly differentiate from sap_get_transaction_guide, which may be similar. Overall purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 when to use the tool (when guidance is needed for listed workflows) by specifying the workflows and their target parameters. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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