SAPLint

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that lint/lint_and_fix/list_rules are local, while format and formatter_settings call SAP, and that rules are auto-selected by system type. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false).

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 concise yet comprehensive, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the main functionality and structured by action. Slightly lengthy but efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: actions, local vs remote, sibling references, and parameter nuances. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance: e.g., source is not needed for list_rules and get_formatter_settings, and it clarifies action names and their requirements.

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's purpose: running local abaplint rules on ABAP/CDS source, with auto-selection of cloud or on-prem rules. It lists specific actions and distinguishes from sibling tool SAPDiagnose by mentioning its use for ATC/syntax/unit tests.

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 when to use the tool and provides context for each action (lint, lint_and_fix, etc.), including the distinction between local and SAP calls. It explicitly directs the user to SAPDiagnose for other checking needs, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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