sap_select_tree_node

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a mutating but non-destructive action. The description adds that it 'highlights the node without opening it', clarifying the specific behavior. No contradictions, but could mention any side effects like deselecting others.

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 that efficiently convey purpose, behavior, and alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's function and usage context. However, the lack of parameter explanations and reliance on output schema for completeness slightly reduces the score. For a simple selection tool, it is nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. The description does not mention 'tree_id' or 'node_key', leaving their meaning entirely to inference. This is a significant gap.

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 action ('Select a node in a tree control') and specifies that it highlights the node without opening it. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool sap_click_tree_link by explaining the alternative for SPRO-style trees.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to highlight/select a node without opening) and when to use an alternative (sap_click_tree_link for opening in SPRO-style trees). This helps an agent decide appropriately.

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