sap_read_textedit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns full text and line count, and explains the max_lines parameter behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and no redundant content. Every sentence adds value: first defines what it does, second explains return and parameter usage.

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 tool is simple; description covers purpose, return values, and key parameter. Output schema exists to detail return structure. Missing prerequisites like requiring an active connection, but that is likely shared context from sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_lines (cap output, 0=all lines) but does not describe textedit_id beyond implicitly referencing it. Partial coverage of parameter 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 verb "Read" and the resource "multiline text editor (GuiTextedit)", listing use cases. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_read_field or sap_read_table by specifying the target UI element.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (reading multiline text editors), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like sap_set_textedit. However, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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