GetClass

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses paging capability and hints at byte limits through parameter descriptions, but does not address error handling, permissions, or return format. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is acceptable but minimal, warranting a 3.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately provides actionable paging advice. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers parameter behavior well. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of description about the return format or potential errors leaves some gaps. The paging guidance is helpful, but the description does not aid in choosing this tool over siblings, making completeness adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including detailed behavior for startLine and maxLines. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing paging, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'ABAP class source code', making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetProgram or GetInterface, but the resource type is specific enough. This aligns with a 4: clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 paging guidance for large classes, which is useful usage context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies usage for retrieval but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings. This fits an implied usage scenario with no alternatives provided.

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