objectRegistrationInfo

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 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more structured with additional context. There is no wasted verbiage, making it concise.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output format, which are crucial for effective tool invocation. The description does not provide enough context to compensate for the missing structured data.

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% description coverage, with one required parameter 'objectUrl' undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'objectUrl' represents (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). This leaves the parameter's meaning unclear, failing to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 registration information for an ABAP object' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('registration information for an ABAP object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getObjectSource' or 'objectStructure', which might also retrieve ABAP object details, leaving the scope vague. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.

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. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an object URL), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'objectStructure' or 'getObjectSource'. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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