bw_xref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so in detail: it explains that transformation and DTP hits carry source, target, type, name, and upstream/downstream direction, and it discloses special listings for analysis processes, aggregation levels, objects beneath an ALVL, and planning functions. It also clarifies how to trace data flow hop by hop, which is substantive return/payload context beyond structured fields.

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 purpose and primary use case are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the remaining detail is relevant to this complex tool. The description is long and formatted as a single dense paragraph rather than structured sections, which slightly reduces skimmability.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool returns, how to interpret direction, special object-type behaviors, and the preferred alternative for DTP-to-process-chain lookups. It covers the complex xref semantics an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for object_type values such as ALVL and DTPA beyond what the schema alone conveys. It does not specifically clarify source_system behavior, which remains schema-only.

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 a specific verb and resource: find where-used/dependencies for a BW object, returning all referencing objects. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming bw_get_dtp and explaining when this tool is preferred. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit usage contexts—finding transformations and DTPs for an aDSO, tracing DTP dependencies, and using object_type=DTPA for process chains—and names bw_get_dtp as an alternative for that last case. It also describes special handling for classic SAP BW and aggregation levels, providing clear routing guidance.

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