讀取原始碼

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool auto-resolves the main include, returns line numbers, and truncates with a marker. This adds useful context beyond a simple read operation, though the truncation limit is unspecified.

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 efficiently convey purpose, key features, and limitations. No extraneous information; every sentence is purposeful. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

While the description covers the main functionality and return content (line numbers, truncation), it omits details like error handling (e.g., object not found), output format examples, and specific limits. Without an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that object_url accepts either object URI (with auto-resolve) or full source URI, and that start_line/end_line are optional. This provides extra context not in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads ABAP object source code, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like write_source by focusing on reading, and adds detail about automatically resolving main includes and returning line numbers.

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 implies the use case (reading source code) but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. No direct comparison to sibling tools such as search_objects or get_object_structure is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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