sap_read_tree

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the output format (node hierarchy with texts and column values), though it does not detail edge cases or performance characteristics beyond the large tree hint.

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 three sentences with no superfluous content, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently covers key 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (documenting return format), the description adequately covers purpose, usage guidance, and parameter context. It is complete for the tool's 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 relies on context to explain parameters. It implies tree_id identifies the tree and hints at max_nodes via the large tree alternative, but does not explicitly describe max_nodes as a node limit. Partial compensation but not fully clear.

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 identifies the tool as reading data from tree controls, specifies the returned structure (node hierarchy with texts and column values), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_get_tree_node_children for large trees and sap_search_tree_nodes for searching.

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 explicitly advises against using this tool for large trees, directing to sap_get_tree_node_children, and for finding specific nodes, directing to sap_search_tree_nodes, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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