CheckDdl

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

Describes action (syntax check) and return type (errors/warnings/messages). No annotations provided; description is adequate but does not disclose side effects or prerequisites beyond parameters.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundant text. Highly concise.

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?

Adequately explains functionality for a simple check tool, despite no output schema. Mentions return types and two modes. Could detail output structure, but not critical.

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% so description adds limited value. It clarifies the 'hypothetical' use case and maps to version/ddl_source parameters, but meaning is mostly already in schema.

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?

Clearly states it performs syntax check on ABAP CDS views, with two modes: existing view or hypothetical DDL source. Distinguishes from sibling Check* tools that target 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?

Implies usage for syntax checking CDS views, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among sibling check tools. Suggests two use cases but no exclusions.

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