sap_read_object_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns structured data including descriptions, field definitions, relationships, and metadata, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, failure behavior, output size, or the read-only nature beyond the tool name.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: a clear opening, a complete list of supported types, and an explicit routing to sap_read_code. It could be slightly better structured with bullets, but it is not padded or redundant.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return categories and per-type behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool with the required object_type and object_name, though it does not fully specify response shape or edge cases.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining what each object type offers, such as domains with fixed values, transactions with linked programs, and message classes with all messages. This goes beyond the bare enum values and helps an agent select the right object type.

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 reads comprehensive details about SAP repository/DDIC objects and enumerates exactly which object types are supported. It also explicitly differentiates itself from sap_read_code for source code objects, so an agent can distinguish it from closely related siblings.

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 explicit guidance for source code objects: use sap_read_code instead. It also implies when this tool is appropriate by listing all supported object types. However, it does not address potential overlap with other metadata-reading siblings such as sap_read_object_info or sap_read_table_structure.

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