GetSystemInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return contents (URL, client, auth method, reachability) and warns against prerequisite use, but it does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect-free behavior or whether calling it may trigger authentication or network side effects.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: the first lists returned data, the second and third give clear usage constraints. Every sentence earns its place and the critical scoping warning is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when it should or should not be used. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description appropriately focuses on return values and usage context instead.

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?

Specific verb (Returns) and resource (active SAP ABAP backend connection details), with enumerated return fields and a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling ABAP object tools by stating it is for connectivity troubleshooting, not for reading objects.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (ONLY for troubleshooting ADT connectivity or confirming the targeted backend) and when NOT to use (not as a prerequisite for other ABAP operations). It also explains that all other tools establish the ADT connection automatically, which is a direct alternative behavior.

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