sap_select_combobox_entry

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with the description's 'Select' action. The description adds behavioral detail by noting that the tool accepts either a technical key or display text, which is not captured in annotations. This adds value beyond the annotated metadata.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds key usage details (dual input and prerequisite). It is front-loaded and efficient.

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's low complexity (2 required string parameters), the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input alternatives, and a prerequisite step. It does not elaborate on error handling or exact behavior upon selection, but for a simple UI interaction, this is adequate. A score of 4 reflects minor omissions.

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 explains that 'key_or_value' can be either a technical key or visible display text. The 'combobox_id' parameter is not explicitly described but is inferable from the tool name and context. The partial explanation for one of two parameters justifies a score of 4.

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 explicitly states the action ('Select') and resource ('entry in a combobox/dropdown') and specifies the method (by key or display value). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'sap_select_checkbox' or 'sap_select_radio_button' by focusing on combobox/dropdown interaction.

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 advises using 'sap_get_combobox_entries first to see all valid options', providing a clear prerequisite. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context of sibling tools makes the resource type differentiation clear. A score of 4 reflects the useful guideline without full exclusions.

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