CheckInterface

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions return types (errors, warnings, messages) but lacks information on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., interface must exist), or whether the check is read-only.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action and retrieval. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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, the description should elaborate on the return format or detail level of errors/warnings. The current description is adequate but lacks specificity, especially for an agent that may need to parse the output.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema description already explains it ('Interface name (e.g., ZIF_MY_INTERFACE)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action ('Perform syntax check'), the resource ('ABAP interface'), and the output ('syntax errors, warnings, and messages'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling check tools (e.g., CheckClass, CheckTable) which target different ABAP objects.

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 omits any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check an interface vs. a class). While the name and context imply its purpose, explicit usage directives are absent.

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