Tracks SAP data pulled in this conversation, displays per-tool usage and limits without calling SAP, and requests more allowance from the user when reset is enabled.
SAP data pulled in this conversation, per tool, and the limits. No SAP call. reset=true asks the USER in a window for more allowance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does volunteer two real behavioral facts: it performs no SAP call (so it incurs no data cost), and reset=true opens a window that asks the USER for more allowance (a user-facing side effect, not a silent config change). It still omits whether the reset is immediate or requires approval and what the budget scope is.
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?
It is short with no wasted padding, and the parameter note is placed last where it belongs. However, the telegraphic sentence fragments ('SAP data pulled in this conversation, per tool, and the limits') make the first sentence slower to parse than a single well-formed clause would be.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the essential 'no SAP call' and 'reset prompts the user' facts. Still missing for a 1-param budget tool: what the limits are measured in (tokens vs calls) and whether the budget is per conversation or global.
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% for the single boolean 'reset' parameter, and the description does compensate partway by explaining that reset=true asks the USER in a window for more allowance. It does not state what reset=false (the default) does or the consequence of declining the prompt, so the meaning is only half-specified.
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 conveys the subject (SAP data consumed in this conversation, per tool, plus limits) but is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so an agent must infer that this is a read-only budget/usage status tool. 'No SAP call' usefully separates it from data-querying siblings, but the core action is never named.
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?
Implied usage is clear enough: call it to check consumption against limits, and set reset=true to request more allowance. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, but the 'No SAP call' clause implicitly routes agents elsewhere for actual data retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.