sap_read_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and 'from the connected system' provides environmental context. However, it does not disclose output format, behavior on invalid objects, or any permissions/limitations beyond what the name itself suggests.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word adds meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It earns a perfect score for 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 simple read tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and object types. It lacks explicit mention of return value structure, but the operation 'read source code' inherently implies returning the source. Given the low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is largely 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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by mapping object_type codes (PROG, CLAS, FUGR, INCL, INTF) to the human-readable list (programs, classes, etc.), but it does not provide additional detail on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema examples.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('ABAP source code'), and enumerates the object types (programs, classes, function groups, includes, interfaces). This differentiates it well from sibling tools that read table data, dumps, jobs, or syntax checks.

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 a clear context ('from the connected system') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage is implied for reading ABAP source code, but no sibling tool comparisons or exclusions are given.

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