get_object_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies read-only behavior by describing retrieval of structure and metadata, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., object not found). Adds some value beyond schema but incomplete.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by detailed examples of what is retrieved for each object type. Efficient and scannable.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. Description explains what it returns for different object types (tables, views, models, data flows). Missing are error cases, performance notes, or output format hints, but overall sufficient for typical use.

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 parameters. Description provides general context (e.g., example values) but does not add significant additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves complete design-time object definitions from SAP Datasphere repository, listing specific object types (tables with columns/keys/indexes, views with SQL, analytical models with dimensions/measures, data flows with transformation steps). It distinguishes from siblings like get_table_schema or get_analytical_model by emphasizing 'complete' and broad coverage.

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?

Description explicitly states use cases: 'understanding object implementation details, extracting schema information, or planning migrations.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would have made it stronger.

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