CheckReleaseState

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kind of information returned and its pre-remediation role, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination behavior or any failure/error conditions. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 sentences with no fluff: the first states the core purpose and key outputs, the second gives actionable guidance on when to use the tool. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple inspection tool, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the principal return values. It does not explain how maxLines/startLine affect a call, but the schema already documents those parameters, and the absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the mention of returned fields.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions for maxLines, startLine, and cds_view_name are already clear and detailed. The description mentions the CDS view name naturally but adds no substantive semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('SAP release classification of a CDS view'), and enumerates the key returned fields (API state, successor, base view, extensibility). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetCDSView and RemediateObject.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this before remediating to understand what needs to change.' This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not name exclusions or compare itself to alternative tools.

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