GetAbapSemanticAnalysis

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

The description includes '[read-only]' explicitly indicating no destructive side effects, which adds transparency beyond the absence of annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as performance implications, required permissions, or whether the analysis requires complete/valid code. The read-only hint is useful but minimal.

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 concise sentence with the read-only tag front-loaded. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's 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?

Given the tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (symbols, types, scopes, dependencies). It does not mention handling of incomplete or erroneous code, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'code' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description ('ABAP source code to analyze'). Since the schema already clearly defines the parameter, the description does not provide extra semantic value.

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 semantic analysis on ABAP code and returns symbols, types, scopes, and dependencies. It uses a specific verb ('perform semantic analysis') and identifies the resource. However, among sibling tools like GetAbapAST and GetTypeInfo, the description does not differentiate when to use this over alternatives, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as GetAbapAST or CheckClass. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the AI agent without direction.

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