CheckClass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (syntax errors, warnings, messages) and the fact that hypothetical validation does not create an object, which is genuinely useful. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating for the existing-class path, nor mentions permission or lock prerequisites, so behavioral coverage is incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries purpose or mode information; no structural waste.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned content (errors, warnings, messages). It also covers both operating modes, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The lack of explicit read-only confirmation and guidance against sibling check/analysis tools is the only real gap.

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 all three parameters, including the active/inactive enum and the complete-source requirement for source_code, are already documented in the schema. The description restates the mode distinction but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('syntax check') and resource ('ABAP class'), and by naming the resource it distinguishes itself from siblings like CheckInterface, CheckTable, and CheckDdl. An agent can identify the target of the check 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?

The description explains the two usage modes clearly: checking an existing class (active or inactive) versus validating hypothetical source code that is not yet an object. It gives solid context but names no alternative or exclusion, e.g. it never contrasts itself with GetAbapAST, GetAbapSemanticAnalysis, or RunATC, so the agent must infer when a syntax check beats those tools.

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