CheckStructure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authorization needs, or other behavioral traits beyond the output, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key capabilities. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 adequately covers the return value (syntax errors, warnings, messages). For a simple syntax-check tool targeting a specific object type, this is sufficient. It does not need extensive elaboration on structure or behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It only reiterates the return type, which does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool performs a syntax check on ABAP structures, specifying two distinct modes (existing structure or hypothetical DDL code). It uses a specific verb-resource combination and sufficiently distinguishes from sibling check tools like CheckTable or CheckView by focusing on structures.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool—checking an existing structure (active or inactive) or validating hypothetical DDL code. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the use cases are well defined and no exclusions are mentioned.

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