get_object_types

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get list' clearly implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify output format, ordering, pagination, or whether any authorization is needed. It is adequate for a simple list operation but not richly transparent.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. The action and result ('list ... with descriptions') are front-loaded and every word 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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description conveys the core behavior, but there is no output schema to document return structure and no mention of how the object types connect to the sibling query_abap_objects. Slightly more context would make it fully self-contained.

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?

The tool has no parameters and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The no-parameter case naturally earns the baseline of 4.

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 states a specific action ('Get list') and resource ('available object types'), and notes the output includes descriptions. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling query_abap_objects, but the resource naming is distinct enough that the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus query_abap_objects, nor any context such as how the returned object types relate to querying ABAP objects. The agent must infer the tool's place in a workflow.

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