Read ABAP runtime errors (ST22 short dumps)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational transparency beyond those annotations: the dump feed only reaches back 8 days, an empty list is not proof of no failures, show returns only specific chapters unless the operator enabled more, and key values must be copied verbatim because spaces are significant.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds a distinct operational fact. It packs mode routing, retention semantics, key-handling warnings, and return-content expectations without repetition or filler.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and nuanced list/show behavior, the description covers the essential semantics needed to select modes, interpret empty results, construct keys, and know what show returns. The annotations cover safety and idempotence, and the description covers the behavioral edge cases that could otherwise lead to false conclusions.

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 already documents every parameter (100% coverage), but the description goes beyond it with critical operational details: no page cursor exists and paging is done by setting to to the oldest timestamp seen, keys must not be trimmed or re-encoded, and chapters are selected by untranslated names rather than titles. These details are essential for correct invocation and are not present in the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Read ABAP runtime errors (ST22 short dumps) from the system's dump repository'. It also distinguishes itself from a different kind of read ('not the exception text of a run this server just triggered') and enumerates the two modes, list and show, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does without inspecting siblings.

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?

It clearly describes when to use list vs show, explains the 8-day retention implication for interpreting empty lists, and instructs verbatim key copying. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool or exclusion relative to abap_read/abap_search, but the mode-level guidance and the 'not the exception text' exclusion give solid contextual direction.

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