GetTable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses paging behavior for large tables, which is useful, but it doesn't mention potential truncation, byte caps, or the exact return format (though the schema notes byte cap may limit lines). It also doesn't state that the operation is read-only, though that is implied. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, zero fluff. The purpose statement is immediately followed by a targeted usage tip. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and a key usage nuance. However, it does not describe what the returned structure looks like (fields, metadata, etc.) or any error behavior, which an agent might need to interpret results correctly. The absence of an output schema increases the need for a bit more detail on the return shape.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (table_name, startLine, maxLines) with their constraints and defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond reiterating the paging use case, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Retrieve ABAP table structure.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like GetTableContents (which returns contents) and GetStructure (which targets a generic structure), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous and front-loaded.

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 explicit guidance for large tables: use startLine/maxLines to page instead of retrieving all at once. This is clear when-to-use advice. However, it doesn't mention when to choose this tool over its many siblings (e.g., GetStructure, GetTableContents), so alternative selection is left to inference.

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