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 closing 'Read-only: nothing is written or saved' largely restates structured data. What the description does add is useful beyond the annotations: the card is composed of screenshot + session/transaction info + status bar + pending fields, so the agent knows what the user will see. It says nothing about cost/latency of capturing a screenshot or behavior when include_screenshot is false.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the conditional call guidance follows the content list in a logical order. Only the trailing 'Read-only: nothing is written or saved' is slightly redundant with the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the rendered output (a preview card with named sections), which is the right call. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, two parameters remain unexplained and there is no indication of what a preview actually returns as a tool result versus what the user sees.

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 carry all parameter meaning, but it only explains one of three: pending_fields is described as 'the values the agent is about to write,' which is genuinely helpful. The 'note' and 'include_screenshot' parameters get no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving their purpose and effect entirely inferential.

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 gives a specific verb ('render a preview card') and enumerates the exact contents (screenshot, session/transaction info, status bar, pending_fields), which cleanly separates it from the raw sap_screenshot and sap_get_screen_info siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Call before significant writes (batch fills, F11 save) or whenever the user asks to see what's about to happen' supplies concrete triggers, including the specific sibling workflow sap_set_batch_fields. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it or naming an alternative preview/screenshot tool for other cases.

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