CheckClass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions return of errors/warnings/messages and the two modes, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects or required authorizations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence states the core purpose; second adds the optional hypothetical source code capability. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description mentions return content (errors, warnings, messages). This is sufficient for a check tool. No major gaps identified given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for class_name, version, and source_code.

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?

Description clearly states 'Perform syntax check on an ABAP class', specifies two use cases (existing class and hypothetical code), and differentiates from sibling Check* tools for other object types.

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 implies use for syntax checking of classes, which is clear from context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other Check* tools), though the object type (class) is a natural differentiator.

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