GetObjectInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool is read-only and describes the enrichment behavior via SearchObject. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, error handling, or authorization requirements.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the read-only nature and core functionality. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 description covers the return structure (root, group nodes, leaves) and enrichment, but lacks detail on the output format, pagination, or error scenarios. Since there is no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context beyond schema, such as the default behavior of maxDepth depending on type and the enrich parameter defaulting to true, which aids understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool returns ABAP object tree structure for specific object types (DEVC, CLAS, PROG, FUGR, etc.), describes the output (root, group nodes, terminal leaves), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve single objects or perform CRUD operations.

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 exploring hierarchical object structures with maxDepth and enrichment, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like GetObjectStructure or GetPackageTree, nor when not to use it.

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