List Inactive Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the user filter is applied client-side, and the return shape included fields such as uri, type, name, and transport.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples, and Notes, keeping each section to one or two lines. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description supplies a JSON return contract with count and objects. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, examples, filter behavior, and the next step (sap_activate). For a tool with only two optional parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both user and response_format. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining the user filter is client-side and by showing a concrete example (user='DEVELOPER') and a no-argument usage. Response_format is only name-dropped, but its enum and default in the schema cover 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?

Description states 'List all inactive ABAP objects for the system (objects edited but not yet activated), with owner and transport.' This is a specific verb and resource with clear scope and definition. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sap_list_transports and sap_activate by focusing on inactive objects awaiting activation.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'Use to find leftovers before activating or transporting.' The description also points to sap_activate as the follow-up action. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that this is a minor gap.

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