GetPackageContents

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

The description marks the tool as read-only and mentions recursive traversal, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose return format, potential errors, or limits like default depth, which are partially covered by schema descriptions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with '[read-only]', and every sentence contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify what the flat list contains (e.g., object names, types) or any return structure, which is necessary for an agent to understand the output.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'recursive traversal' echoes the include_subpackages and max_depth parameters but adds no new semantic meaning 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 tool retrieves objects inside an ABAP package as a flat list, with recursive subpackage support. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetPackage (package metadata) and GetPackageTree (hierarchical structure).

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 use when a flat list of package objects is needed, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like GetPackageTree or GetObjectInfo. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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