sap_syntax_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'without saving anything' and adds state context with 'release-accurate' and 'connected system's syntax rules.' This conveys non-persistence and system-version sensitivity, though it does not mention permissions or whether any server-side state might be affected.

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 clause adds meaningful detail: validation, syntax rules, release accuracy, and non-persistence.

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 and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary function and side effects, though it could explicitly state what the check returns (e.g., errors/warnings) to fully support invocation.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (source and program_name), so the description adds little parameter-level detail. It does provide useful contextual framing about ABAP source and syntax rules, but does not go beyond the schema in terms of parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Validate'), resource ('ABAP source code'), and validation target ('the connected system's syntax rules'). This is sufficiently specific and distinct from the sibling read/search tools.

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 use case is implied: validate ABAP source code before or without persisting it. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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