搜尋 ABAP 物件

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values (name, type, package, URI) and implies a read-only search. No side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable for a search tool.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and resource, with zero wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

The description explains the return structure (name, type, package, URI) and gives an example, but does not mention pagination or error scenarios. For a simple search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's example 'ZCL_INVOICE*' reinforces the wildcard usage but adds little beyond the schema descriptions for query, max_results, and object_type.

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 verb '搜尋' (search), resource 'ABAP 物件', and the method '以名稱(支援 * 萬用字元)', distinguishing it from siblings which operate on specific objects (e.g., read_source, activate_object).

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 provides context by noting that returned URIs are used by subsequent tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like browse_package.

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