validate_view

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 that the tool reconstructs the view from builder calls or raw XML, runs two gates (property gate and headless render), and uses typed mock models. It also mentions performance ('Seconds'). It does not elaborate on edge cases like how deviations are handled, but the schema covers 'allow'. Overall, it provides substantive behavioral context.

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 with no filler. The first sentence telegraphs the core purpose and mechanism, the second adds the speed benefit and workflow recommendation. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete enough for a validation tool with 5 params and no output schema. It explains the two validation gates, the input forms, the performance win, and the next step. It doesn't detail return values or failure messages, but since there's no output schema, that burden falls somewhat on the agent. The lack of explicit mention of the 'allow' parameter is minor, as the schema covers it. Overall, solid.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying parameters to behavior: it references 'z2ui5_cl_ai_xml builder calls' (abap_source), 'raw view XML' (xml), 'UI5 property gate' (min_ui5), and 'renders it headless' (render). It doesn't explicitly explain the 'allow' parameter, but the schema does. The description adds context beyond the schema, hence a 4.

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 opens with 'Fast static validation via ai-view-check', a specific verb+resource combination. It details that it reconstructs the view, runs a UI5 property gate, and renders headless, distinguishing it from build/run tools. The explicit mention of 'BEFORE the build/run loop' and 'then deploy_app once it is clean' clearly separates it from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'use it after writing ABAP, then deploy_app once it is clean'. It contrasts with the build+boot cycle and names deploy_app as the next step after validation passes. This makes the tool's position in the workflow clear and provides a concrete alternative.

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