sap_discover_change_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates this is a read-style lookup against TCDOB and that the result is an OBJECTCLAS, but it does not mention what happens when no object class is found, output formatting, or prerequisites.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a useful usage condition.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what is returned conceptually and when the tool is appropriate. It could mention edge cases like an unknown table name, but the simple scope makes the definition adequate for invocation.

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%: the only parameter, table_name, already has a clear Data Dictionary table description and an example. The description adds context about finding the change document object class, but this contributes more to purpose than to parameter-level semantics.

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 ('Find'), identifies the exact resource ('change document OBJECTCLAS for a table'), and names the underlying lookup mechanism (querying TCDOB). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_read_change_docs that actually read change documents.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before querying change documents when the object class is unknown. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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