Search ABAP repository

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the 20+ second latency risk on wide fan-in and the availability of wildcard matching. No contradiction with 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?

A single efficiently structured sentence conveys the two modes, wildcards, and a key performance warning without wasted words. The critical guidance is front-loaded.

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 search tool with fully documented schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the main behaviors, modes, and the most important performance caveat. It does not detail return shape, but there is no output schema, and the description already provides enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 still adds value by introducing wildcard usage and explicitly tying query/type narrowing to performance, which complements the schema's parameter documentation.

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 finds ABAP objects by name pattern or lists consumers in where_used mode, with a specific resource and verbs. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like abap_read, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear usage context: use mode=objects for name-pattern search and mode=where_used for consumer listing, plus practical guidance to narrow by type/query first due to latency. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use the tool, so not a 5.

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