inactiveObjects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list is in (e.g., JSON, plain text). This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is front-loaded but could be slightly more informative (e.g., adding context like 'in the ABAP system') without losing conciseness, keeping it 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 no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'inactive objects' means, how the list is structured, or any prerequisites (e.g., login required), leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage in a system with many sibling tools.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have clarified if there are implicit filters (e.g., by type or date), though not required. Baseline is high due to no parameters.

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 'Get list of inactive objects' clearly states the action (get) and resource (inactive objects), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'inactive objects' refers to in this context (e.g., ABAP objects, system resources) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'activateObjects' or 'deleteObject', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention if this is for auditing, cleanup, or monitoring purposes, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'activateObjects' for reactivation or 'deleteObject' for removal, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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