cc_search_objects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a safe read-only search operation but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks extra context beyond the obvious safe nature of search.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value (usage guidance and alternative).

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core usage and provides alternative. Parameter details are well-documented in schema. Lacks explicit description of return format, but the response_format parameter partially covers it. Overall complete enough for typical usage.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats examples from schema but adds minimal new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool searches ABAP objects by name pattern with wildcard support, providing specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling cc_semantic_search by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (prefix search or wildcards) and when not (natural language search), with clear alternative cc_semantic_search. Includes examples for proper usage.

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