syntaxCheckCode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions performing a syntax check but fails to detail critical traits like whether it's read-only or mutative, error handling, rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, leaving 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 that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity. Overall, it's appropriately concise for its length.

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 doesn't explain parameter roles, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively. The lack of sibling differentiation further reduces completeness.

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 are documented in the schema. The description only implies the 'code' parameter is used for source code but doesn't explain the purpose of optional parameters like 'url', 'mainUrl', 'mainProgram', or 'version'. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 an ABAP syntax check with source code, which clarifies the verb ('perform syntax check') and resource ('ABAP source code'). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes', leaving the scope vague regarding what specific type of syntax check it handles.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing valid ABAP code, or comparisons to siblings like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' for CDS-specific checks. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage directives.

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