abapPath

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety, and it still increases value by revealing non-obvious behavior: the traversal is breadth-first, budget-limited, and entirely based on ADT static data with no ABAP parsing. It explicitly calls out that dynamic CALL METHOD is invisible, a critical blind spot for the agent. These are behaviors not derivable from the annotations or schema, so the description carries its weight.

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?

Three dense, purposive sentences: what, how, and limitation. Every phrase earns its place—the impactOf comparison is a second reference, and the dynamic-call caveat is a valuable nuance. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, and the most operative detail comes first.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core algorithm, traversal budget, data-source purity, and a key missed edge case. It does not explicitly describe the shape of the returned path or result with no path found, but that is a moderate gap given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema. Overall the description is complete enough for an agent to call it effectively and interpret the main semantics.

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 9-parameter schema has 100% description coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds multi-dimensional context by explaining the budget-driven traversal and the 'same data as impactOf' relationship, which helps verify parameters like maxDepth and maxNodes. But it doesn't enumerate or simplify per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise purpose, 'Whether one object's code reaches another, and through what,' which immediately distinguishes reachability analysis from simpler lookup tools. It further clarifies the method by stating it walks usageReferences backward from 'to' through callers, explicitly contrasting it with impactOf's roll-up approach. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or which sibling it relates to.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when you need a specific 'from' to 'to' path through callers, rather than a rolled-up impact analysis. It references impactOf and usageReferences as the underlying data source, giving context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-not conditions. The mechanism is clear enough to infer the right call timing.

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