sap_scroll_table_control

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the tool does not work on ALV grids, which is a key behavioral constraint. It does not elaborate on other behaviors like requiring visibility or scroll limits, but the annotations already cover safety.

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: three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds a critical constraint, and the third provides an alternative. Every sentence earns 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 the tool has 2 required parameters and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: action, constraint on ALV grids, and an alternative. It could mention that the table control must be visible or that scrolling is relative, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 for the missing parameter documentation. The description does not explain what table_id or position mean beyond the implicit 'row position'. The agent must infer the meaning, which could lead to misuse. Minimal value added for parameter semantics.

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 scrolls a GuiTableControl to a specific row position using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like sap_read_table by specifying it does not work on ALV grids, though it does not explicitly mention it is for navigation within the visible window.

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 states when not to use it (does not work on ALV grids) and suggests an alternative tool (sap_read_table with start_row) for reading data at an offset. This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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