syntaxCheckCode

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly discloses the session-scoped caching behavior and how source is reused via getObjectSource/setObjectSource. This is genuinely useful and not redundant 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 tight sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the caching detail is tucked into the second clause. Every word earns its place; no redundant qualifiers or filler.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core usage path (code and url) but omits the auxiliary parameters (mainUrl, version, mainProgram) and does not hint at the return format (e.g., error list). The caching behavior is well explained, but an agent may need to discover parameter semantics elsewhere. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a clear gap.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'code' has a description). The description adds meaning to 'code' (optional if cached) and clarifies 'url' (the object whose cached source is reused). However, it provides no semantics for mainUrl, version, or mainProgram. With low coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves these parameters unexplained, 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 clear, specific declaration: 'Perform ABAP syntax check.' The verb 'perform' and resource 'ABAP' make the action unambiguous. Among siblings, it is distinctly the one for standard ABAP syntax (vs. syntaxCheckCdsUrl for CDS, syntaxCheckTypes for type checks), so an agent can differentiate without reading schemas.

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 explicit usage instructions: provide source in 'code' or omit it to reuse the cached source for 'url' acquired via getObjectSource/setObjectSource. It explains the caching mechanism and when to omit 'code', which is effective guidance. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternative syntax-checking siblings, leaving that to contextual inference.

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