Sap Read Textedit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so usefully by stating what comes back (full text plus line count) and that max_lines=0 means all lines — a non-obvious behavior. Minor gap: no note on truncation semantics or the exact shape of the line count.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by return behavior and the one parameter caveat. No filler, though the awkward line breaks in the source slightly hurt scannability.

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, return values need not be described, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. For a simple read-only 2-parameter tool the only real omission is how to obtain textedit_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 parameter meaning. It fully explains max_lines (0 = all lines, caps output), but says nothing about textedit_id beyond the name — how to find it and what format it takes is left to inference.

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 states a concrete verb (Read) and a specific resource (a multiline text editor / GuiTextedit), and the parenthetical examples of content types (long texts, notes, comments, document text) make the target element unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby sap_read_field, but the 'multiline text editor' framing is specific enough to separate the two in practice.

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?

It gives guidance on the max_lines parameter (cap output for large editors, 0 = all lines) but never says when to prefer this over sap_read_field or how to obtain a valid textedit_id (e.g., via sap_get_screen_elements). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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