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 the tool retrieves source code, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size limits). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output format, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context or 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the parameters (objectSourceUrl and options), such as what they represent, their format, or examples. With two parameters (one required), this leaves the agent guessing about their semantics and usage.

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 the resource ('source code for ABAP objects'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'setObjectSource' or 'findDefinition', but the verb 'Retrieves' implies a read operation versus a write or search, providing basic distinction.

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 (e.g., 'setObjectSource', 'findDefinition', 'searchObject'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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