sap_list_package_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: results are grouped by object type, wildcard package names are supported, and sub-packages can be included. It does not mention error behavior or explicitly confirm read-only semantics, but the 'List' framing and return-oriented language make the operation's nature clear.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load the core action and output grouping, then provide use cases and advanced invocation guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema, though the sentence listing many object types is slightly dense.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the grouping and categories of returned objects. However, it omits the exact fields returned per object, pagination or result-limit behavior, and error handling for invalid or non-existent packages, which matters for a potentially large inventory operation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds some extra meaning, especially the include_subpackages=true recommendation for custom namespace codebases and wildcard examples, but it does not substantially enhance the schema's explanation of object_type_filter.

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?

Clearly identifies the verb and resource: 'List all ABAP repository objects in a development package (DEVCLASS)' and distinguishes itself as a package-level inventory tool. The use-case sentence reinforces that this is for discovery and codebase inventory, which separates it from sibling read/search tools focused on individual objects or data.

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?

Provides explicit contexts: 'discover and inventory a codebase for documentation, migration analysis, or code review' plus concrete guidance for custom namespaces using include_subpackages=true. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sap_read_code or sap_read_object_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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