GetObjectsList

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

The description labels the tool as '[read-only]' and describes retrieval behavior, but since no annotations exist, it lacks details on side effects, performance, rate limits, or authorization requirements. This is adequate 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the read-only hint and conveys all key information without extraneous 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?

For a listing tool with no output schema, the description indicates the type of content returned (child objects, includes, subcomponents) but does not detail the structure or format. This is sufficient for most use cases but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with minimal parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the recursive retrieval and listing example object types, providing context beyond the schema's basic field names.

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 'retrieves', the resource 'child ABAP repository objects', and specifies recursive behavior including nested includes and subcomponents. It lists object types (PROG, FUGR, CLAS, DEVC) distinguishing it from sibling tools like GetClass or GetFunctionGroup that retrieve single objects.

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 explains the tool's recursive nature and that it retrieves all children, implying use when a full tree is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context of siblings provides implicit differentiation.

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