Object Version History

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: version records exist only when SAP created them, fresh $TMP objects may have none, and an unknown version returns the list of available numbers. This prevents misleading expectations without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: Args, Returns, Examples, and Notes. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every section earns its place without redundant padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the JSON return shape, covering both operation modes, providing examples, and documenting edge cases. An agent has everything needed 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the dual-mode behavior of the version parameter ('omit to list revisions; supply to read that revision's source') and gives natural-language examples that map intents to parameter values.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List the version history (revisions) of an ABAP object, or fetch the source of a specific old version.' This clearly distinguishes sap_get_revisions from sap_get_source by emphasizing historical revisions versus current source, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 concrete usage patterns with examples: when to omit version, when to supply it, and how to compare with sap_get_source. It does not formally state 'do not use for current source,' but the examples and notes make the intended use clear enough.

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