Browse Package Contents

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds behavior beyond that by specifying the JSON response shape and node type taxonomy. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the examples reinforce safe 'browse' usage.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then compactly covers inputs, return shape, and examples. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is justified by the useful return-shape and type details.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the returned object and node list. The only ambiguity is that it says 'Returns (json)' while response_format can default to markdown, but the examples and return structure still give an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters with examples and defaults. The description's Args list and examples add little beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the repository objects and sub-packages inside an ABAP package.' This clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from global search or source-retrieval siblings like sap_search_objects and sap_get_source.

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?

It states when to use the tool: 'exploring what's in a package before making changes or doing an audit.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of the strongest guidance, but the context is clear.

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