Check Clean Core Compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond stating the check action. No contradictions are present, but the description does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authorization requirements, or error handling.

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 very concise, consisting of three sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, specifying input and output, and providing usage context. No extraneous information is present, and the critical details are front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and the availability of annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality, input format, and return values. However, it could be improved by detailing the structure of the output or mentioning any limitations, such as a maximum number of objects.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the expected input format ('comma-separated list'), allowing optional type prefixes, and clarifying what the tool returns ('Clean Core Level classification, compliance status, and successor recommendations'), which compensates for the lack of an output 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Clean Core compliance of a list of SAP objects'). It clearly conveys the tool's primary function but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like sap_search_objects or sap_get_object_details, which could also involve objects and compliance checks.

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 usage context ('Essential for assessing existing custom code during ABAP Cloud migration'), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference sibling tools as alternatives. The context suggests usage, but lacks direct comparison.

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