sap_select_table_row

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

Discloses key behaviors: zero-based indexing, absolute row index for ALV, and scrolling for TableControl. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which the description supplements with these behavioral details.

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 concise with four sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. No unnecessary information, and the structure is well-organized.

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 tool with two parameters and clear UI action, the description covers essential behaviors and variations. It could mention that selection is purely a GUI action, but annotations already indicate non-destructive. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere.

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 adds meaning to the 'row' parameter by explaining zero-based indexing, but the 'table_id' parameter has no description. Partial coverage prevents a higher score.

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 selects a row in a table/grid. It specifies it works on both ALV grids and table controls, and distinguishes from siblings like select_all_rows or select_multiple_rows by focusing on single row selection.

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 usage is clear: for selecting a single row. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for multiple rows) or reference sibling tools like sap_select_multiple_rows. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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