Sap Select Tree Node

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the key non-obvious trait that selection highlights rather than opens the node, which is exactly the ambiguity for a tree 'select'. It does not mention side effects like scrolling the node into view or whether prior selection is cleared, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what it does not do, when to use an alternative). No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-parameter operation whose core ambiguity (highlight vs open) is resolved. The remaining gap is how to source tree_id and node_key, which the description leaves entirely to the caller.

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% — neither tree_id nor node_key carries any schema documentation — and the description adds nothing about their format or origin. It never points the agent to sap_read_tree or sap_find_tree_node_by_path to obtain a valid tree_id/node_key, so the caller must guess how to source both required parameters.

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?

Specific verb (select) plus resource (node in a tree control), with an immediate behavioral qualifier ('highlights the node without opening it') that distinguishes it from the expand/collapse/double-click tree siblings. It also names the sibling to use for a different tree flavor, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing advice is given for one important case: SPRO-style trees should use sap_click_tree_link on the execute icon column instead. It does not address when to choose this over sap_double_click_tree_node, sap_expand_tree_node, or sap_find_tree_node_by_path, but the primary selection trap is covered.

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