nodeContents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: most rows return a SAPGUI bridge URI with properties but no content, and unknown packages return no nodes (indistinguishable from empty). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('One level of the repository tree'). The two caveats are important and each sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose phrasing ('Two things to know') but overall efficient.

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 tree-navigation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral quirks (bridge URIs, unknown-package behavior) and routes to alternatives. It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but no output schema exists and the annotations cover safety. The main gap is not explaining what 'parent_type' values are valid, but the schema already names the field.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does clarify the meaning of 'parent' in context (package or function group). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 returns one level of the repository tree (contents of a package or function group), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from packageTree and listFunctionGroup by noting they resolve real source URLs, but it doesn't explicitly name all sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., objectStructure, searchObject).

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: it is not the way to read sources, and packageTree/listFunctionGroup are the alternatives for resolving real source URLs. It also warns that an unknown package looks like an empty one, so a repository search is needed to distinguish them. This is strong when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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