Read ATC Documentation

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, covering its safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral trait that only a bounded section is returned, implying pagination via offset and length parameters. It does not detail edge cases, but the combination with annotations is sufficient.

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 with no filler. It delivers the core action and scope efficiently.

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 output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks context on how to identify an ATC finding or the format of docUri. The bounded section behavior is present, but required parameters remain unexplained, making it a minimal viable description.

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. The phrase 'bounded section' hints at offset and length but does not explicitly map to the parameters or explain the semantics of systemId and docUri. This is insufficient for two required parameters.

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 reads a bounded section of documentation for an ATC finding, using a specific verb and resource. The 'ATC finding' qualifier distinguishes it from general documentation or semantic documentation tools. The scope is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sap.quality.atc.cached or sap.quality.atc.run. The 'bounded section' phrase implies offset/length usage but does not serve as a clear directive. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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