sap_read_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('Reads'), which implies no modification, but it does not cover authorization needs, possible errors, output form, or whether object_name must be qualified with a development object type. The main behavior is clear, but context beyond the action is missing.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It clearly states the action and target in minimal words. It loses one point only because the brevity borders on under-specification rather than intentional, well-rounded conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it does not mention what the source code read returns, whether certain object types are unsupported, or how object_name should be specified. Given the sibling context (read_metadata, write_source), a bit more differentiation would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines object_name as 'Object name.' The description adds no further nuance about object_name, such as naming conventions, accepted formats, or how to identify a development object. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reads the source code of a development object.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from sap_read_metadata (metadata vs. source code) and sap_write_source (read vs. write). It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly clarify scope or contrast itself with sibling tools in the text.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose: if an agent needs source code, this is the tool that reads it. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of when sap_read_metadata would be more appropriate, and no prerequisites or naming requirements. It is adequate but relies on inference.

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