CheckTable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only (no side effects). It also omits details about authentication requirements or performance implications, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, consisting of two sentences that cover purpose and key details without any extraneous text. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the two modes of operation. It could be improved by specifying that it does not modify data, but for its complexity level, it is largely complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two usage modes (existing table vs. hypothetical DDL) which contextualizes the version and ddl_code parameters. This additional meaning goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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 an ABAP table, distinguishing it from sibling Check* tools that check other objects. It explicitly mentions two modes: checking an existing table (active/inactive) and validating hypothetical DDL code, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 for when to use the tool (syntax checking of tables or hypothetical DDL), effectively differentiating it from other Check* siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., why one would choose ActivateTable instead) and does not mention alternatives, missing a chance to be more helpful.

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