ddicElement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what format the information is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid paths. The description is too minimal for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, though this conciseness comes at the expense of providing additional context that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'DDIC element' means in this context, what format the returned information takes, or how the optional boolean parameters affect the retrieval. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 information about a DDIC element' clearly states the action (retrieves) and target (DDIC element), avoiding tautology. However, it doesn't specify what type of information is retrieved or differentiate from similar tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve metadata about ABAP objects.

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 many sibling tools that retrieve information about ABAP objects (e.g., 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure', 'codeCompletionElement'), there's no indication of when this specific DDIC element retrieval is appropriate versus other lookup tools.

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