adt_get_object_structure

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes what it returns (includes sourceUri, method/attribute outline with name+visibility) and that it's token-optimized, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose, return content, usage guidance, strategic positioning. No redundant words, each sentence adds value. 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?

No output schema, but description compensates by detailing the return structure (includes sourceUri, method/attribute outline with name+visibility). Connects to sibling tools for next steps. Could specify more about the outline format, but overall complete for navigating large objects.

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?

Only one parameter (objectUri) with schema description 'Object URI from adt_search_objects'. Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context by specifying the source of the URI, which helps the agent understand how to obtain it. Baseline 3 with added value.

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 it gets the structure/outline of an ABAP object, listing specific components (methods, attributes, includes, metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like adt_read_source (full source) and adt_search_objects, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 advises using the include sourceUri with adt_read_source for reading includes and method names for edits. Positions itself as a token-optimized entry point for navigating large objects, implicitly telling when to use it (to avoid full source reads). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions but provides clear context.

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