abap_bopf

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description aligns with it ('Reads'). It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotation by labeling raw as expensive and by framing check_refs as probing up to max_sites, which warns of potential cost/scope.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the core read operation and then uses pipe-separated modes to pack all behavior into a scannable line. Every phrase ('default', 'expensive escape hatch', 'needs object_type', 'default 25') earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with six fully schema-described parameters, the description covers all modes, defaults, and key prerequisites. The only gap is that search/check_refs return shapes are not described and there is no output schema to carry that burden, but invocation decision-making is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic color: 'digest' and 'v4 XML' explain what show/raw return, and it restates mode-specific prerequisites and defaults in a compact form. This exceeds the baseline without duplicating every schema detail.

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 opening verb 'Reads' plus the resource 'a BOPF business object's design-time model' makes the action and object precise. Listing the four modes (show/raw/search/check_refs) further distinguishes it from generic siblings like abap_read and abap_search.

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 gives concrete mode-selection context: show is the default digest, raw is an expensive escape hatch, search requires object_type, and check_refs is capped by max_sites. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over abap_read/abap_search, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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