ddicElement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose critical traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned information. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the type of information retrieved.

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 complexity of a tool with 4 parameters (including optional ones) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'DDIC element' entails in this context, the nature of the retrieved information, or behavioral aspects like response format or errors. For a retrieval tool in a technical environment like ABAP, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters (e.g., 'path' as the required path, optional booleans for associations, views, and objects). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for parameter usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 states the tool 'retrieves information about a DDIC element,' which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('DDIC element'). However, it lacks specificity about what type of information is retrieved (e.g., metadata, structure, properties) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure,' which might have overlapping purposes in an ABAP context. This makes it vague in distinguishing its unique role.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for ABAP development or system analysis), or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure'), the lack of explicit or implied usage scenarios leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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