sap_get_screen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: password fields are redacted and control enumeration is capped at 300. It doesn't say what happens when a screen exceeds 300 controls, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope cap, then appends the optional screenshot clause. Every element earns its place with 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the agent is told what is read and that passwords are masked, but not the shape of the result, how controls are represented, or how the screenshot modes interact with as_file_target_folder. Adequate, but real gaps remain for a 2-param call.

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 carries the full burden for two parameters. It alludes to an optional screenshot but never explains the five enum modes (none/as_file/as_base64/as_imagecontent/as_imageurl) or the role of as_file_target_folder, leaving the main parameter largely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (SAP COM controls and text) with a concrete scope cap (up to 300) and a redaction behavior baked into the purpose itself. Against siblings like sap_click, sap_type, and sap_press, which mutate the screen, this is unambiguously the read-side tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: it doesn't say to call this before inspecting state, before/after a click, or in relation to save_last_screenshot or launch_transaction. The word 'optionally' is the only hint, and it applies to a parameter rather than to tool selection.

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