sap_read_textedit

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

Annotations already confirm read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating it returns full text and line count, and that max_lines caps output. It does not disclose error cases or performance for large texts, but with output schema handling returns, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-load the action and resource, with no extraneous words. Every sentence provides unique value, earning its place.

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 two parameters, one required, and an output schema, the description covers the core read behavior and max_lines but lacks detail on textedit_id. With sibling tools like 'sap_get_screen_elements' potentially providing IDs, the description could be more self-sufficient.

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 compensate. It only describes max_lines' usage and default (0 = all lines) but entirely omits explanation of textedit_id, its format, or how to obtain it. This leaves a critical parameter unexplained, failing to add sufficient meaning.

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 content from a multiline text editor (GuiTextedit), specifying both the verb ('read') and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sap_read_field' (for single fields) and 'sap_set_textedit' (which writes), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for text editors and mentions capping output with max_lines, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sap_read_field') or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named, reducing its helpfulness for agent selection.

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