List modification functionalities for a Fiori app (step 1/3)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by naming the concrete set of modification functionalities and by framing this as the entry point of a three-step workflow, which helps the agent understand the tool's role and output domain.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, target, and result set; the second gives the workflow context in one compact line. Every element earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity, read-only list operation with one documented parameter, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema. The description provides the purpose, the exact list domain, and the follow-up workflow, leaving no crucial gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the single appPath parameter is already fully documented as 'Absolute path to the app folder'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it reinforces that the tool operates on an existing Fiori app. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Gets the list of supported modification functionalities for an existing SAP Fiori application' and enumerates the exact functionality names returned. The title's 'step 1/3' and the workflow line clearly distinguish it from get_functionality_details and execute_functionality.

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 explicit workflow 'list_functionality → get_functionality_details → execute_functionality' tells the agent this is the first step and names the relevant sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus list_fiori_apps or other listing tools, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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