tableContents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, performance characteristics, or what happens with large tables (e.g., pagination). The description lacks crucial behavioral context for safe and effective use.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the retrieved contents will be in, how errors are handled, or any limitations (like maximum row retrieval without the optional parameter). The context signals indicate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) that warrants more complete guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 action ('retrieves') and resource ('contents of an ABAP table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve data from ABAP tables, such as 'runQuery' or 'nodeContents', which appears to be a similar content retrieval tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'runQuery' (which might execute custom queries) and 'nodeContents' (which retrieves node contents), there's no indication of when this table-specific retrieval is preferred over those options or what distinguishes it.

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