GetVirtualFoldersLow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It states the tool retrieves data (read operation) but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or return format. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise sentence plus a tag '[low-level]', front-loading key purpose. Every word earns its place, though more detail could be added without excessive length.

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 5 parameters, the description provides enough context for a retrieval tool but omits return value details and potential performance notes. It is minimally adequate.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies a verb ('retrieve') and resource ('hierarchical virtual folder contents from ADT information system'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like GetNodeStructureLow or GetPackageContents, both of which may perform similar browsing.

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 phrase 'Used for browsing ABAP objects by package, group, type, etc.' implies when to use, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternative tools among the many siblings.

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