Inspect ABAP Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'safe quick-fix discovery' but does not expand on any behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main actions. However, listing many actions in one sentence makes it cluttered. Every sentence adds value, but structure could be improved.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and many actions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites (e.g., connectionId), or parameter dependencies for different actions.

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 compensate. It explains that 'line is one-based and column is zero-based' for the line and column parameters. However, the other 8 parameters (e.g., endColumn, maxResults, connectionId) are not described, leaving significant gaps.

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 the tool uses SAP ADT semantic services for multiple actions like completion, documentation, etc., so the general purpose is clear. However, with many sibling tools for inspecting ABAP code (e.g., get_abap_object_info, get_abap_diagnostics), the description does not differentiate this tool from them, making it ambiguous when to use this one.

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 lists actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_abap_object_info for definitions or get_abap_diagnostics for diagnostics. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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