cc_classify_objects

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

Discloses two key behaviors: uses most restrictive state for multiple entries (safety-first) and classifies not-found objects as Level C with a citation. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it adequately covers read-only nature and handling edge cases.

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?

Four sentences front-load the core purpose, then add behavioral details and use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return table fields and key behaviors (multiple entries, missing objects). Minor gap: 'json' response format is only described as 'full detail per object' without specifics, but overall adequate for a 4-parameter tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds overall context (e.g., object limit, classification logic) but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'bulk compliance check' and 'classify up to 500 ABAP objects at once,' with clear output fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on batch classification for auditing transport lists or dependency inventories, which is unique among the listed siblings (e.g., cc_lookup_object for single lookups).

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'audit a transport's object list or a codebase's dependency inventory.' Lacks negative guidance or explicit alternatives, but the context strongly implies when to use this tool (batch) versus siblings (single lookups, explanations).

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