CheckView

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read-only syntax check, returns errors/warnings/messages, and can check both saved and hypothetical DDL. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness but 'syntax check' implies no side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant or extraneous 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 covers return types (errors, warnings, messages). While the structure is not detailed, it is sufficient for a check tool. Could be slightly more explicit about the return format.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of version and ddl_source parameters, linking them to checking existing vs. hypothetical views.

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 syntax check on ABAP CDS views, with the ability to check existing views (active/inactive) or hypothetical DDL source. This differentiates it from sibling Check tools for other object types (e.g., CheckTable, CheckClass).

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 implies usage for CDS views but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other check tools. No alternatives are mentioned, though the context of siblings makes the purpose clear.

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