adt_syntax_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: it does not lock or write (non-destructive), and returns errors/warnings with line numbers. It lacks details on authorization requirements or rate limits but covers the most important aspects for safe invocation.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding essential information: the core action, the non-destructive nature, the return format, and usage guidance. No fluff or 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's simplicity (two parameters, clear output), the description is fairly complete, covering purpose, behavior, and usage. It does not address edge cases like empty results or invalid URIs, but these are minor for a syntax check 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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds a minor clarification on objectUri format ('base, not /source/main'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. 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 tool runs an ABAP syntax check, specifies the resource as 'provided source', and distinguishes itself by noting it does so 'without locking or writing'. It also explicitly contrasts with adt_write_source, providing clear differentiation among siblings.

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 explicitly advises to use the tool before adt_write_source for pre-validation, which is a clear usage guideline. It does not cover when not to use, but the context of many siblings makes this selective suggestion helpful.

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