cc_find_successors

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

No annotations provided. The description lists return contents (classification, names, levels, advice) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like destructive potential, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adequately implies a read-only lookup.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second lists return contents. No redundant words, front-loaded, highly efficient.

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 3 parameters all described in schema, no output schema, the description covers purpose and return value sufficiently. It could elaborate on how to interpret classification or migration advice, but overall it is adequate for a lookup 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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds context about the return value but does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'successor APIs for deprecated or classic API ABAP objects'. It is distinct from sibling tools like cc_classify_objects or cc_search_objects, which serve different purposes.

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 says 'Tells you exactly which Released API to migrate to when retiring a deprecated dependency', which implies usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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