GetInclude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the pagination hint signals that large includes may need chunked access, but the description does not explicitly state behavior like byte caps, errors, or access requirements. It adds some useful context but not full behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the action and resource, and the second sentence earns its place by providing pragmatic pagination guidance.

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 a simple retrieval operation, and the schema already documents all parameters including line behavior and hasMore semantics. The description could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that retrieval is non-mutating, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description mentions startLine/maxLines operationally, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('ABAP Include Source Code'), so an agent knows exactly what object is fetched. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like GetProgram or GetStructure, but the resource type is unambiguous enough to differentiate it.

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 actionable usage guidance: for large includes, use startLine/maxLines to page through the source instead of retrieving everything at once. It does not mention when to prefer a sibling tool, but for a fetch-source operation that is not a critical omission.

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