DescribeByList

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

The description starts with '[read-only]', indicating a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior for missing objects), performance limits, or return structure. Since no annotations are provided, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the read-only hint. It contains only two sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description does not specify the output format, which is critical given no output schema. It also lacks usage guidelines, leaving the agent unclear about the tool's complete behavior and when to use it.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds value by explaining the input structure and listing example types for the 'type' parameter (e.g., PROG/P, CLAS/OC). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a batch read operation for ABAP object descriptions. It specifies the input format and lists possible object types, distinguishing it from single-object sibling tools like GetClass or GetFunctionGroup.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., individual Get* tools). The description implies batch use but does not state that it is intended for multiple objects or exclude use cases.

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