Get ABAP Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it performs syntax checking specifically, which is consistent. However, it does not provide additional behavioral context such as request size limits or system impact beyond what annotations offer.

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, front-loaded sentence. It is concise, but for a tool with 5 parameters, it is too sparse to be effective. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination (startIndex, maxResults), or parameter relationships. The annotations cover safety, but usage context is lacking.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (severity, maxResults, startIndex, connectionId). The only parameter implicitly mentioned is fileUri ('identified by an adt:// URI'). Fails to add meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the specific verb 'Run SAP ADT syntax checking' and the target resource ('current source identified by an adt:// workspace URI or ADT path'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_abap_sql_syntax or analyze_abap_dumps.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other diagnostic tools (e.g., get_atc_decorations, analyze_abap_dumps). The description implies it is for syntax checking but does not state alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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