sap_read_object_info

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

The verb 'Get' and the listed metadata fields signal a read-only lookup and give a preview of the output content. However, annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden and does not address not-found behavior, authorization requirements, or response format.

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. Every phrase earns its place, naming both the operation and the key output fields.

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 tool with full schema coverage, this is mostly adequate, and it lists the salient return fields despite having no output schema. It is incomplete only in that it does not disambiguate from sap_read_object_details or describe behavior when the object is missing or inaccessible.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the object_type enum and object_name's example and case-insensitivity. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the generic phrase 'ABAP object,' so it meets the schema-coverage baseline without exceeding it.

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 verb-resource pair ('Get metadata about an ABAP object') and names specific returned fields (creation date, last changed date, author, package). It does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling sap_read_object_details, which could plausibly overlap in intent.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sap_read_object_details and other read tools among the siblings, an agent must rely on name inference rather than explicit usage direction.

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