GetClassInclude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about permissions/authorization, behavior when the include does not exist, or what form the result takes — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the enumerated variants parenthesized at the end; nothing is wasted. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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 should carry more: it never says the tool returns source code and never positions itself against GetInclude/GetClass. Adequate to invoke correctly, but thin given the missing structured context.

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 the include_type enum already documents each value, including the CCDEF/CCIMP/CCMAC/CCAU mapping. The description only restates the same value list, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, 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 ('Retrieve') and resource (a specific include of an ABAP class) and enumerates the five include kinds, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby siblings GetClass and GetInclude, which likely overlap in scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 at all: nothing says when to call GetClassInclude versus GetClass (whole class) or the generic GetInclude. The list of include_type values implies the options but not the selection conditions, so an agent must infer the routing.

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