adt_search_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses wildcard support and return fields, but does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or authorization requirements. This is adequate for a search tool but could be more comprehensive.

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 long, front-loading the action and supported wildcards, then specifying return values and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary function, return information, and ties to sibling tools. It lacks details on pagination or result ordering, but the maxResults parameter addresses the limit. Overall, it is sufficient for effective use.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (query with example, maxResults with range, objectType as optional filter). The description adds only the context of wildcard support and URI usage, which is already implied by the schema examples. Thus the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches ABAP repository objects by name pattern with wildcard support, and specifies the returned fields (name, type, package, URI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adt_browse_package or adt_read_source by focusing on search rather than browsing or reading.

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 explains when to use the tool (searching by name pattern) and provides guidance on next steps by mentioning to use the URI with adt_read_source or adt_get_object_structure. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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