CheckProgram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it marks the tool as read-only, describes the return content (syntax errors, warnings, messages), and explains the batch recording behavior where calls return empty content and answers are read later by number. It does not cover authorization or edge cases, but adds meaningful context beyond structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return behavior, followed by availability and batch semantics. Each sentence adds value, though the batch-mode note could arguably be separated for clarity.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only check tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return information and batch behavior. It is sufficient for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around error details.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description mentions program_name but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs a syntax check on an ABAP program identified by program_name. This distinguishes it from sibling Check* tools such as CheckClass and CheckTable by the resource it checks.

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?

It provides clear usage context, including that it is available on premise and that `inactive` should be passed right after a write for the unsaved version. It does not explicitly exclude other Check* siblings, but the resource-specific scope makes the intended use clear.

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