abapDocumentation

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 specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.

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 none of the 5 parameters (objectUri, body, line, column, language) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves parameters like 'body' and 'line' ambiguous in context.

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 ABAP documentation' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ABAP documentation'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what kind of ABAP documentation (e.g., for objects, code elements) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'ddicElement', making it somewhat vague.

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. With many sibling tools that might retrieve or document ABAP-related information (e.g., 'findDefinition', 'ddicElement', 'objectStructure'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'abapDocumentation'.

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