Diagnose ABAP Source

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, non-destructive read behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'bounded', which is not fully explained. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enhance them meaningfully.

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?

Single sentence is concise but under-specifies the tool. For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description should be longer to include parameter roles or behavioral details. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema and multiple parameters, the description covers none of the parameter meanings, output characteristics, or usage context. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without external documentation.

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 but fails. It mentions 'bounded' (possibly via limit or startIndex) but does not explain systemId, fileUri, severity, or startIndex. Agents have no clue how to use parameters without schema descriptions or tool description hints.

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 'Run bounded SAP syntax diagnostics for ABAP source' clearly identifies the tool's action (diagnostics) and target (ABAP source). The term 'bounded' hints at pagination or limits, distinguishing it from unbounded scans. Among siblings like sap.source.activate and sap.source.read_batch, this purpose is distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sap.quality.atc.cached or sap.system.inspect. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or comparison with sibling diagnostic tools.

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