ExportCDSViewToFile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it partially discharges it by disclosing the output location, the fixed file extension, and a non-obvious side effect (automatic Z-namespace conversion of view name and SQL view name). It omits other relevant traits: whether an existing file is overwritten, what is returned to the caller, and any permission/authorization prerequisites.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary action and destination are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries genuinely useful information about the namespace transformation rather than restating the name.

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 one-parameter file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is exported, where it lands, how it is named). It stops short of the details an agent would want before invoking a write-to-disk operation: overwrite behavior, return value, and error/authorization conditions.

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% and there is only one parameter, whose schema entry already documents the name and gives examples (I_Material, C_SalesOrder). The description adds no syntax, format, or naming details for view_name beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Export), a specific resource (CDS DDL view), and a specific destination (a file in the tmp folder with .ddls.asddls extension). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling read tools GetCDSView/GetCDSViewContents and from the other Export*ToFile tools that target different object types.

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 phrase 'directly to a file in the tmp folder' implies the use case (persisting a view to disk rather than retrieving content inline), which is enough to infer usage against GetCDSViewContents. However, it never names an alternative or states an explicit when/when-not condition, so guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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