ReadInterface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states [read-only] indicating no side effects, but does not mention any potential errors, performance considerations, or what happens if the interface doesn't exist. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 exceptionally concise, using one sentence to convey the core functionality. The [read-only] tag is front-loaded for immediate clarity. No superfluous words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., source code as string, metadata as key-value). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect. For a read tool returning multiple data types, this is a significant gap.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (interface_name, version) with full descriptions and enum constraints. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on how parameters affect behavior or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Read' and the resource 'ABAP interface', and specifies it reads source code and metadata. The [read-only] prefix further clarifies the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetInterface or UpdateInterface, though the sibling list includes both GetInterface and ReadInterface, implying a distinction but not explained in the description.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetInterface or other read tools. The [read-only] tag implies it's safe for reads, but no context about when not to use it or prerequisites. Among many sibling tools, the lack of differentiation diminishes usability.

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