sap_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only: nothing is written or saved.' It adds useful context about the tool's behavior: it renders a preview card including screenshot, session info, status bar, and pending fields. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with usage guidance, and ends with the read-only note. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and 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?

The description covers the tool's function, when to use it, and its read-only nature. However, it does not describe the output/return value (no output schema exists), and it leaves the note parameter entirely unexplained. For a simple preview tool with optional parameters, it is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It explicitly mentions pending_fields ('the values the agent is about to write (pending_fields)') but does not mention note or include_screenshot. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description does not clarify their purpose or relationships. Given the low coverage, the description fails to fully compensate.

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: 'Render a preview card of the current SAP screen' and lists its contents (screenshot, session/transaction info, status bar, pending_fields). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sap_screenshot (which only captures a screenshot) and sap_get_screen_info (which only fetches info) by combining these into a preview card. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'Call before significant writes (batch fills, F11 save) or whenever the user asks to see what's about to happen.' This provides clear context and timing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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