GetBehaviorDefinition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior when no behavior definition exists, or whether the returned metadata includes drafts/authorization info.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter. It is perhaps slightly over-terse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does state what is returned (source code plus metadata), which covers the essentials. It still omits failure modes and access requirements that an agent would benefit from for a repository lookup tool.

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 100%, so the sole parameter cds_view_name is fully documented by the schema as 'Name of the root CDS view entity'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('RAP behavior definition source code and metadata'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from the close sibling GetBehaviorForRapBo, which also deals with RAP behavior, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that the CDS view must be a RAP root BO), and no mention of the alternative GetBehaviorForRapBo or GetCDSView. The agent must infer context entirely.

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