CheckTable

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or behavior when table does not exist. Adequate for a simple check operation.

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 concise sentences that front-load the verb and resource, with no redundant information.

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 mentions return type (errors, warnings, messages) which is sufficient. Parameters are well-covered. Slightly lacking details on error handling or output structure, but complete enough for a straightforward check tool.

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%, and description adds meaning: explains table_name is an ABAP table, version has default 'new', and ddl_code allows validating alternate source. This provides context beyond the 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?

The description explicitly states the tool performs syntax checks on ABAP tables, with two modes: checking existing tables (active/inactive) or validating hypothetical DDL code. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like CheckClass or CheckStructure.

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 scenarios (existing table vs DDL code) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. However, the context of sibling tools implies this is the correct tool for tables.

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