sap_read_table

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context such as auto-detection of table type, inclusion of 'table_type' in response, and schema discovery via columns_only. No additional side effects or limitations are noted, but the context is sufficient.

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 concise (approximately 100 words), well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 key aspects: reading data, pagination, schema discovery, and column filtering. It does not explain the return format beyond the 'table_type' field, but an output schema exists. Missing details like error handling or prerequisite conditions are minor given the complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the purpose of columns_only, columns, and start_row. It implicitly covers max_rows through default value mention, but table_id is not explicitly described beyond the context of reading a table. This provides adequate meaning for most parameters.

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 'Read data from an ALV grid or table on the current screen,' using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions auto-detection and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like sap_get_alv_toolbar and sap_scroll_table_control.

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 provides good guidance on when to use the tool (for reading ALV/table data) and explains parameter usage (columns_only, columns, start_row). However, it does not explicitly compare it to other read tools like sap_read_field or sap_read_shell_content.

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