syntaxCheckCdsUrl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'perform ABAP syntax check' which implies a read-only validation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, if it has side effects (e.g., logging), rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., errors, warnings). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 action ('Perform ABAP syntax check') and specifies the method ('with CDS URL'). Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.

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 of a syntax check tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, error details), how to interpret results, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely validates code, more context is needed for effective use.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's implied by the parameter name 'cdsUrl'. It doesn't explain what format the URL should be in, what it references (e.g., a CDS view in a repository), or any constraints. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states the tool performs 'ABAP syntax check with CDS URL', which indicates the verb ('perform syntax check') and resource type ('ABAP'). However, it doesn't specify what exactly gets checked (e.g., CDS view definitions, SQL statements) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'. The purpose is somewhat vague about scope and differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' and 'syntaxCheckTypes' available, the description doesn't explain if this is for CDS-specific syntax, when it should be preferred, or what prerequisites might exist. Usage is implied only by the name, not explicitly stated.

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