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 valuable context: auto-detection of table type, inclusion of 'table_type' in response, and pagination via start_row. It could mention default max_rows but the schema provides that default.

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, well-structured into three clear paragraphs: purpose, auto-detection/response, and parameter usage. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details shown, the description covers essential usage and response content (table_type). It assumes knowledge of table_id but otherwise provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description explains the purpose of columns_only (schema discovery), columns (specific columns), and start_row (pagination). It does not explain how to identify table_id, which is the only required parameter, nor max_rows. Given 0% schema coverage, this adds meaning to 3 of 5 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 rows from a table on the current screen' and specifies the two table types (ALV grid or TableControl). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning type-specific tools like sap_get_alv_toolbar and sap_scroll_table_control, but does not explicitly differentiate from other read tools such as sap_read_field.

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 detailed guidance on parameter usage (columns_only for schema discovery, columns for specific columns, start_row for pagination) and mentions that the response includes a 'table_type' field to guide subsequent tool choice. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like sap_read_field.

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