Read Dynpro / Screen Source

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful limitations: it returns only flow logic, not the layout, and notes that 404 means the screen doesn't exist. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and information-dense. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by concise parameter explanations, a useful example, and only two highly relevant notes. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the exact return shape. It covers parameter usage, an example, a scope limitation, and an error condition. The tool is simple enough that this is a complete picture for an agent 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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including types, constraints, and examples. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the same information, so the baseline of 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 reads the PBO/PAI flow logic source of a dynpro/screen, and explicitly distinguishes this from program source and the element list. This level of specificity makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like 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?

The description explains that screens are separate from program source and that this tool returns screen ABAP, not the element list. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as sap_get_source.

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