CheckView

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'perform syntax check' and mentions outputs (errors, warnings, messages), but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or require special authorization.

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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's functionality and options.

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 lack of an output schema, the description mentions the return type (syntax errors, warnings, messages) and covers the primary use cases. It is sufficiently complete for a developer to understand the tool's 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 covers all three parameters completely. The description adds context by mentioning 'existing view (active/inactive)' and 'hypothetical DDL source', but does not add significant meaning 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 clearly states it performs a syntax check on an ABAP CDS view, specifying that it can check existing views or validate hypothetical DDL source. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like CheckClass or CheckTable by focusing on CDS views.

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 when to use the tool: to check syntax of ABAP CDS views, either existing or hypothetical. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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