getObjectSource

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 states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral traits (e.g., what the retrieved source code looks like or how errors are handled) unspecified, creating ambiguity.

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, clear sentence: 'Retrieves source code for ABAP objects'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This efficiency makes it easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, output expectations, or behavioral nuances like error cases. For a retrieval tool in a development environment with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure reliable use, making this description inadequate for the tool's needs.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'objectSourceUrl' and 'options' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what an 'objectSourceUrl' is, what format it expects, or what 'options' might include. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving users guessing about input 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 'Retrieves source code for ABAP objects' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (source code for ABAP objects), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'setObjectSource' (which modifies source code) or 'findDefinition' (which might retrieve metadata), leaving the distinction vague. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or uniqueness.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an object source URL), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'objectStructure' or 'codeCompletion'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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