GetAbapSystemSymbols

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

The '[read-only]' prefix discloses a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not cover other aspects like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate 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 sentence with a tag, containing only essential information with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description gives a good idea of what symbols are returned (types, scopes, descriptions, packages). For a simple single-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete, though explicit output format would be beneficial.

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%, so baseline is 3. The parameter description in the schema is clear ('ABAP source code to analyze'), and the tool description adds context about output contents but not about the parameter itself.

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 resolves ABAP symbols from semantic analysis, listing included information (types, scopes, descriptions, packages). It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetAbapSemanticAnalysis.

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 over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are listed but without explanation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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