SAPLint

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it discloses which sub-actions are local vs. remote (calling SAP), that the 'set' for formatter settings is 'blocked read-only', and that lint_and_fix auto-fixes issues and returns fixed source. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds richer behavioral detail about the mixed local/remote execution model and the blocked set operation.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence before enumerating actions. The bullet list is scannable. Slight length from the detail on actions and their parameters, but each sentence earns its place and covers genuinely useful information.

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 carries the burden of explaining what each action returns, which it does (fixed source for lint_and_fix, rules+config for list_rules). It covers the required parameter (action), the six actions thoroughly, and relevant tool boundaries. Minor gap: it doesn't specify the return shape of the lint/format actions beyond lint_and_fix, but the overall coverage is strong.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping which actions require which parameters (e.g., 'source needed for format', 'not needed for list_rules/get_formatter_settings', style/indentation are 'for set_formatter_settings'). This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions and clarifies parameter-to-action relationships.

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 'Run local abaplint rules on ABAP/CDS source' with a specific verb (run), resource (ABAP/CDS source), and explicit action categories for each sub-command. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'For ATC/syntax/unit tests use SAPDiagnose'.

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 both when to use each action (lint, lint_and_fix, list_rules, format, formatter settings) and what each does. It explicitly calls out that lint/lint_and_fix/list_rules run locally while format and formatter settings call SAP, and names the alternative tool SAPDiagnose for ATC/syntax/unit tests. This is exceptional guidance.

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