generation_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'rulebook' and 'Read it' phrasing imply a read-only, informational tool, but it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the output format. This is 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a direct usage instruction. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple documentation tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool provides, what it covers, and when to use it. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit statement that it's a read-only reference, which would fully satisfy contextual completeness in the absence of annotations.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the content of the rulebook, which is meaningful given no input schema exists.

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 identifies the tool as 'the canonical rulebook' for writing abap2UI5 apps, specifying the exact areas covered (dispatcher skeleton, view/attribute idioms, binding and event rules). This is specific and distinguishes it from operational siblings like deploy_app and run_app.

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 instruction 'Read it once before generating ABAP' provides a clear when-to-use directive. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context implies this is a prerequisite learning tool, distinct from the other sibling tools that perform actions.

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