CheckStructure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Syntax check' and 'returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages' make clear this is a non-mutating validation and describes the result shape, but there is no mention of permissions, whether it triggers activation, or performance/rate considerations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The middle sentence is slightly redundant with the parameter schema but still earns its place by disambiguating the two modes.

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 3-parameter read-only validation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, and return content adequately. The only gap is behavioral detail on permissions and mode precedence, which is minor for this tool class.

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 the enum for version, the ddl_code override, and structure_name are all documented in the schema. The description restates the active/inactive and DDL modes but adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail (e.g., what happens when both structure_name and ddl_code are given). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (syntax check) and resource (ABAP structure), and clarifies two modes (saved active/inactive version vs. hypothetical DDL). It distinguishes itself from the many other Check* siblings by naming the resource, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from CheckDdl even though the DDL-mode feature overlaps with that tool.

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 the two usage modes (existing structure vs. hypothetical DDL code), which implies when to reach for it, but names no alternatives or exclusions and gives no prerequisites. An agent must still infer whether to use this or CheckDdl for DDL validation.

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