sap_read_field

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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: what the read returns, that 'changeable' status is included, and specifically that a dropdown's value is the selected text with key as the key.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then the dropdown edge case, then the prerequisite pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 an output schema present, the return-shape sentence is supplementary rather than required, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the critical gaps are closed. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented field_id format, which is not fully resolved by the sap_get_screen_elements pointer alone.

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% and the single field_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by pointing to sap_get_screen_elements for discovering field IDs, but it never says what form a field ID takes or how to read it off a screen.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the value of a field on the current SAP screen'), with scope limiting it to the active screen. This distinguishes it from sap_set_field (write counterpart) and from the table/textedit readers whose targets are named differently.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite rule: 'Use sap_get_screen_elements to discover field IDs on unknown screens.' That tells the agent what to do first when the field ID is unknown. It lacks explicit when-to-prefer-this-over-alternatives guidance (e.g. vs sap_read_textedit or sap_get_cell_info), so it stops short of a 5.

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