sap_select_radio_button

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context on how to obtain the radio ID, but does not elaborate on behavioral details like deselection of other radio buttons. It is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentences: first states the purpose, second provides actionable guidance. No unnecessary words, efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple one-parameter action tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and how to get the parameter. It doesn't mention return values, but that is not critical given the simplicity. The presence of an output schema is noted but not explained, but still adequate.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains how to find the radio_id parameter value via sap_get_screen_elements, adding meaningful guidance beyond the schema definition.

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 'Select a radio button on the current SAP screen', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other UI elements like checkboxes, tree nodes, or buttons.

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 tells the agent to use sap_get_screen_elements with type_filter='GuiRadioButton' to find the radio ID, providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when to use alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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