ReadView

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

The description identifies the tool as read-only and lists the data returned (source code and metadata). However, it does not disclose specifics like authorization requirements, error states, or the format of the output. With no annotations, the description could provide more behavioral context.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that includes a read-only hint, the verb, and the resource. It is concise with no unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly more structured with separate clauses for source and metadata.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and the simple parameter set, the description covers the core functionality but omits details like possible return values, pagination, or error handling. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to discover.

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%, so both parameters (view_name, version) are described adequately in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 view (CDS view)', specifying that it retrieves source code and metadata. The '[read-only]' prefix clarifies the operation type, and the resource is distinct from siblings like ReadClass or ReadTable.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetView or other Read* tools. It lacks explicit context for selection, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the resource name alone.

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