objectEnhancements

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

The description discloses key behavioral facts beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: the running code is the include plus enhancements, the source alone does not reveal them, and an include can belong to multiple programs requiring contextUri. This prevents a common misinterpretation and adds significant behavioral context.

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 sentences, each with high information density: what the tool returns, why it matters (the main caveat), and parameter guidance. The critical usage warning is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement, and there is no wasted wording.

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 query tool with full schema coverage and clear use-case warnings, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. It even explains the return elements (position, optional code) despite lacking an output schema, making it self-contained for practical use.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a rationale for contextUri ('one include can belong to several programs') but does not fundamentally change parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource—enhancement implementations active on an ABAP source—and states the included details (injection position, optional code). It distinguishes itself from source-reading siblings by emphasizing that the source itself does not show these enhancements. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'retrieves,' relying on a noun phrase rather than a direct action statement.

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 to use this tool: before drawing conclusions from a standard include, because the actual running code is the include plus its enhancements. It also provides concrete guidance for when to pass contextUri (for program includes) and explains why, effectively differentiating this from source-only tools.

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