Get ABAP Object Lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it reads 'active' source lines and mentions objectType and methodName, but does not disclose behavior regarding lineCount, startLine, or error handling. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word contributes, but it could be more detailed given the number of parameters. Still, it is efficient and avoids fluff.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination via lineCount/startLine, or the role of required parameters, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains objectType and methodName, but the required parameters objectName and connectionId are not described, nor are lineCount and startLine. Only two of six parameters are clarified, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 it reads active ABAP source lines and mentions the use of objectType and methodName for disambiguation and extraction. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not fully differentiate from sibling tools like search_abap_object_lines or get_abap_object_info.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to sibling tools such as search_abap_object_lines or get_abap_object_info.

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