sap_login

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses that this is an interactive UI popup on the user's screen, that the password is never passed through chat but stored in the OS keychain, and that the call blocks for up to 10 minutes. It stops short of saying what happens on timeout or user cancellation.

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 what happens on screen, then the invocation trigger, then the env values and blocking limit. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, credential security model, environment values, and blocking duration. Nothing needed to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by enumerating the only meaningful values ('prod (default) | dev') for the single env parameter, which the bare string schema does not. That is exactly the semantic gap the description needs to fill.

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 concrete verb and resource: opens a login window on the user's own screen for their SAP user. That is immediately distinguishable from every sibling (all data/report tools), and the parenthetical clarifies the credential handling model.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: call it when another tool reports missing or rejected credentials, or when the user asks. That is clear context for invocation, but there are no exclusions (e.g., don't call if already authenticated) and no alternative paths mentioned.

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