GetInclude

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

The description declares the tool as read-only, which indicates non-destructive behavior. However, without annotations, it does not disclose authentication needs, error handling, or what happens when the include does not exist. Basic transparency is present but limited.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the read-only tag, and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It could be improved by noting the expected return format (e.g., source code as a string), but it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% (the only parameter, include_name, has a clear description). The tool description adds '[read-only]' and specifies 'ABAP include', but the schema already indicates the parameter is an ABAP Include name. Thus, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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', the resource 'source code of a specific ABAP include file', and explicitly marks it as read-only. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetClass or GetFunctionGroup by specifying 'include file'.

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 implies usage for retrieving include source code but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as GetIncludesList or ReadStructure. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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