sap_read_includes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval of source code but adds little beyond that: it does not clarify whether includes are listed by name, whether source is returned in full, or whether nested include chains are included. The verb 'Retrieves' is transparent enough to avoid confusion, but only minimally.

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. It conveys the core operation and the returned content efficiently.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the returned source code. The main gap is not clarifying how the object_type values map to the term 'program', but this is a minor omission given the schema enum.

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 both parameters fully. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which keeps it at the baseline 3.

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 states a clear action ('Retrieves') on a specific resource ('all include files... with their source code'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like sap_read_code. However, it refers to 'a program' while object_type allows CLAS and FUGR, introducing slight ambiguity for those object kinds.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as sap_read_code or sap_read_object_details, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and resource phrasing.

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