sap_help_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('GET', 'RETRIEVES') and mentions receiving 'full page content + metadata', which provides some behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive 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 efficiently structured with clear sections (FUNCTION NAME, RETRIEVES, REQUIRES, USAGE PATTERN) that make information easy to parse. Every sentence serves a purpose: establishing identity, specifying what's retrieved, stating prerequisites, and providing usage steps. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, parameter requirements, and what to expect in return. The main gap is the lack of output format details (what 'full page content + metadata' actually contains), but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear positioning, the description is largely 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with clear documentation of the single parameter. The description reinforces the schema by emphasizing 'Exact ID from sap_help_search results' and 'Use exact ID (don't modify the format)', adding practical usage guidance beyond the schema's technical specification. This provides valuable semantic context about the parameter's origin and handling requirements.

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 explicitly states the verb ('GET', 'RETRIEVES') and resource ('SAP Help Portal page content'), making the purpose crystal clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_help_search (which finds IDs) and sap_community_search (different content source). The description goes beyond just restating the name to specify what exactly is retrieved.

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, step-by-step guidance on when and how to use this tool: '1. Get ID from sap_help_search results 2. Use exact ID 3. Receive full page content'. It clearly positions this as the second step after using sap_help_search, creating a clear workflow relationship with its sibling tool.

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