abapDocumentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the response is release-specific help text, and it is worth reading before guessing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The 'F1 of ADT' analogy is economical and illustrative, and every sentence adds value without padding.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description carries a heavy burden. It explains the core purpose and release-specific behavior, but it does not define the required parameters or describe the return value shape, leaving an agent to guess how to construct a valid call.

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 for the five undocumented parameters. It only implies the notion of 'a position in a source' (line/column/body/objectUri) but never explains individual parameters, their formats, or how they relate. This is a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool as returning ABAP keyword/object documentation for a position in source code, reinforced by the analogy 'the F1 of ADT'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like findDefinition or codeCompletion by naming the specific resource (documentation/help text) and action (answers with help text).

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 contextual guidance: use it to read release-specific help text before guessing at a statement variant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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