SAPLint

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, and the description adds context by noting that lint_and_fix returns fixed source, format calls SAP, and set_formatter_settings is blocked read-only. It does not fully detail side effects (e.g., whether lint_and_fix persists changes), but the information is largely adequate.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence and a bullet-style enumeration of actions. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though slightly dense.

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 6-parameter input schema and no output schema, the description covers all actions, local vs remote behavior, parameter requirements, and hints to sibling tools (SAPDiagnose). It is fully complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds value by naming actions and their prerequisites (e.g., 'source' needed for lint/format but not list_rules), but this is supplementary rather than essential.

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 starts with 'Run local abaplint rules on ABAP/CDS source' and enumerates six specific actions (lint, lint_and_fix, etc.), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like SAPDiagnose by mentioning 'For ATC/syntax/unit tests use SAPDiagnose.'

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 explicitly tells when to use each action (e.g., 'format: pretty-print via SAP's ADT formatter (needs source)') and when not to ('For ATC/syntax/unit tests use SAPDiagnose'). It also clarifies which actions run locally vs remotely, providing clear context for selection.

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