sap_read_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real behavioural context: no screenshot is required, the response shape (lines as the user sees them), colour semantics ('negative' = red errors, 'positive' = green, 'total', 'heading'), and the scroll/pagination convention ('pass scroll_to=position+page_size to read the next page'). It stops short of stating limits on max_lines or truncation behaviour, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core purpose and routing rule are front-loaded in the first paragraph, followed by a tight bullet list where each bullet adds a distinct fact (colours, scrolling, IDs, the negative case). No sentence repeats a sibling name or the schema without adding meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained; the description instead covers the remaining decision surface — when this tool applies, when it does not, and how to continue paginating. For a read-only 4-parameter tool this is complete enough to call correctly on the first attempt.

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 the parameter burden, and it does for three of four: with_ids (adds the first label's ID for setting focus via sap_set_focus), scroll_to (defined operationally as position+page_size for the next page), and window_id (pinned to popup hit lists). max_lines and the default values are never explained, leaving one parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a classic ABAP list ... as lines of text') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling that handles the other case ('a plain list rather than an ALV grid'). It also explains why the resource is special ('every word is its own label, so sap_get_screen_elements leaves the cells out'), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when a report shows a plain list rather than an ALV grid', 'for F4 hit lists in a popup (window_id='wnd[1]')') is paired with an explicit when-not plus alternative ('is_list=false means this screen has no list: use sap_read_table'). This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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