sap_set_focus

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: setting focus is a UI state change required for subsequent actions. It does not detail error cases or side effects, but it adequately conveys the main behavioral trait beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second provides usage context and a specific example. No fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main scenario. It mentions a common use case (sap_send_key), but does not address potential errors or prerequisites like connection existence. Still, it is sufficient for a straightforward focus action.

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 one parameter 'element_id' with no description (coverage 0%). The description only says 'by its ID,' without specifying format, examples, or how to obtain the ID. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer details.

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: 'Set focus to any screen element by its ID.' It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that may also manipulate focus (e.g., sap_set_current_cell). The mention of a specific use case with sap_send_key adds context.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this to set focus before sending keys with sap_send_key.' It explains why focus is needed (e.g., F4 search help) and implies when to use it (as a prerequisite). It does not mention when not to use alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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