GetPackageContents

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. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit confirmation, no note about permissions/authorization needed to read a package, no rate or scope limits, and no indication of what the response contains or how large it might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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; the resource comes first and the option follows. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly what leaves the stated gaps rather than an intentional trade-off.

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 annotations, no output schema, and two boolean parameters whose semantics overlap (recursive vs. include_subpackages), the description should resolve that ambiguity and describe the return shape. It instead leaves the agent to infer how the two flags interact and what a 'contents' result looks like.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description echoes the recursive behavior but adds nothing about the potentially confusing overlap between the `recursive` and `include_subpackages` booleans, which is exactly where added semantic value would help.

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 ('objects and contents within an ABAP package'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling GetPackage, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Clear but not sibling-aware.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions the adjacent GetPackage or SearchObject tools. The recursive option is described as a capability, not as a condition that should drive tool selection. Only implied usage is available.

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