Read ABAP object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns an etag, output is capped around 15k tokens, and there is a recommended strategy for large objects. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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 two tight sentences plus an example, with the core purpose first, then key behavioral constraints, then a usage tip. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational facts: what is read, the etag return, the token cap, and how to handle large objects. It does not detail every parameter or output shape, but those are largely covered by the rich input schema, and the description gives enough for correct selection and initial invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema via a concrete example showing how to fill 'object' and 'type' ('ZCL_FOO', 'CLAS/OC'), and it links outline/method/offset to large-object handling. This extra context helps disambiguate parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a concrete resource ('an ABAP object: source or pseudo-DDL') and gives an example object/type pair. This clearly scopes the tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like abap_search or abap_debug by identifying it as the read operation for ABAP source-like content.

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 provides useful in-tool guidance ('use outline/method/offset for large objects') and an example, but it never explicitly states when to prefer abap_read over sibling tools, nor does it describe exclusions or alternative options. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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