GetAbapSemanticAnalysis

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

The description includes a [read-only] tag and specifies the return content, providing transparency about its non-destructive nature. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it is sufficient but lacks details on error handling or prerequisites.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with a [read-only] prefix. Every word adds value, no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 adequately covers the return values (symbols, types, scopes, dependencies) despite lacking an output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the output format or behavior on invalid code. It is sufficient for a read-only analysis 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% with both 'code' and 'filePath' described in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 semantic analysis on ABAP code, returning specific outputs like symbols, types, scopes, and dependencies. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetAbapAST (which returns abstract syntax trees) by specifying the semantic nature.

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 indicates it is read-only and lists outputs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like GetAbapAST or other analysis tools. Given the large list of sibling tools, guidance on when to choose this one would improve clarity.

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