Build ABAP Dependency Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, clearly indicating the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds 'bounded', hinting at constraints like depth and node limits, but doesn't elaborate further. It does not contradict 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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action. It is concise with no wasted words. However, given the complexity of the tool (8 parameters), it might benefit from slightly more detail 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented. However, the description omits parameter semantics and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly. The presence of 8 parameters with no description leaves significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanation for any parameter, despite the need to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like 'depth', 'maxNodes', and 'customOnly' remain unexplained, making it hard for an agent to use them correctly.

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 builds a 'bounded where-used dependency graph' for ABAP. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('dependency graph'), and the term 'where-used' distinguishes it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'sap.repository.where_used', which likely provides a simpler list.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'sap.repository.where_used', which is probably a simpler variant, but no context is given for choosing one over the other.

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