sap_read_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (value, type, changeable status, labels) and specifying the context (current SAP screen), which aids agent understanding of behavior beyond 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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing returns, and providing usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary text; highly efficient.

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 is complete enough: it explains the purpose, parameter acquisition, and return data. It could mention error scenarios (e.g., invalid field_id) but is otherwise sufficient for a simple read 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?

The schema has no description for field_id (0% coverage). The description indirectly explains how to get valid field IDs (via sap_get_screen_elements) but does not elaborate on the format or constraints of field_id itself. This adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 reads a field value from the current SAP screen, specifies the return data (value, type, changeable status, labels), and distinguishes from the sibling tool sap_get_screen_elements which is for discovering field IDs. Verb+resource is explicit.

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 tells the agent to use sap_get_screen_elements to discover field IDs when the field ID is unknown, providing a clear alternative and when to switch tools. This is a high-quality guideline.

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