Read ABAP object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral facts beyond the annotations: it returns an etag, is capped at ~15k tokens, and can return outlines or partial components. This gives the agent useful expectations about output size and response characteristics.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the most operationally important constraint (token cap) and a practical example. Every sentence 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?

Given the complexity of 14 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the key operational concern — truncation at ~15k tokens — and the workaround for large objects. The schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It could mention diff/history modes or the return format beyond 'etag', but these are secondary given schema coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by showing a concrete example ('{"object":"ZCL_FOO","type":"CLAS/OC"}') and by linking outline/method/offset to the token cap. This helps the agent understand how the parameters work together beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 is explicit: 'Read an ABAP object: source or pseudo-DDL.' It names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and adds distinguishing context like 'Returns an etag' and the large-object strategy. This is enough to tell it apart from sibling tools like abap_search or abap_enh.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: reading ABAP object source or pseudo-DDL. It also provides internal usage guidance for large objects — 'use outline/method/offset' — which helps the agent choose the right parameters. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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