CheckClass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it performs a check and returns errors/warnings/messages, and that hypothetical code does not create objects. However, it does not mention any auth requirements, side effects, or performance considerations. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return values. It is concise with no wasted words, efficiently conveying key information.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main scenarios and return types. It could be more complete by specifying the structure of the return messages (e.g., structured list vs text), but it is sufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining that source_code requires complete CLASS DEFINITION and IMPLEMENTATION sections. This goes beyond the schema description for that parameter. Overall, it complements the schema well.

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 clearly states the tool performs a syntax check on an ABAP class, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes two use cases: existing class (active/inactive) or hypothetical source code. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ActivateClass or CreateClass.

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 when to use the tool (syntax checking) and the two modes (existing class vs hypothetical code). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other object types. The context of sibling tools implies differentiation but is not explicit.

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