getObjectSource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the ADT default version behavior (inactive) and why passing version='active' is necessary to see executed code. It also clarifies paging semantics, which are not covered by annotations. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding the critical version caveat and paging tip. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure leads with the action, then the most important behavioral caveat, then an optimization hint.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage points: the version default and how to get live code, and paging for large sources. It does not describe return format or errors, but those are not required given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety. An agent has enough to call 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?

The schema description coverage is 80%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the practical implication of the version parameter (inactive vs active) and how startLine/maxLines facilitate paging. It does not detail every parameter (e.g., options is deprecated and not mentioned in the description), but the key parameters are enriched with behavioral context, which helps an agent decide how to set them.

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 states a clear verb (Retrieves) and resource (source code for ABAP objects), distinguishing it from mutation tools like setObjectSource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling read tools such as getStructureSource or readSources, leaving some ambiguity about which specific object types or scenarios each handles.

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 practical usage guidance on the version parameter (default is inactive, use active for live code) and on paging for large objects. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like getStructureSource or readSources, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. The guidance is useful for correct invocation but lacks tool-selection context.

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