Analyze ABAP Dumps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool lists or retrieves/normalizes dump HTML, which aligns with annotations. However, it does not disclose further behaviors like expected output format, error cases, or permission requirements, so additional value is limited.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every part is necessary, and it avoids redundancy with annotations or schema.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description provides only high-level purpose. It lacks details on pagination limits (maxResults, startIndex), content retrieval options (contentLength, contentOffset, includeFullContent), and action-specific requirements (e.g., dumpId for analyze_dump). This is insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional context.

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 0%, placing full burden on the description to explain parameters. The description does not mention any parameter (e.g., action, dumpId, maxResults), leaving the agent to infer from names alone. With 8 parameters and 2 required, this is insufficient for proper invocation.

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's dual purpose: listing SAP runtime dumps or retrieving/normalizing one dump's HTML content. It uses specific verbs (List, retrieve, normalize) and resource (dumps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_abap_traces.

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 two use cases (list vs analyze) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_abap_traces or other ABAP tools. No exclusion criteria or context-aware suggestions are given.

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